Datasets:

jkruk

/

tech-data

like 0

Question: I'm a Canadian and came home from university to find our internet connection was no longer secured. My mom said it just randomly happened. Tried to log-on to my modem and add a security but it wouldn't let me in. Called the support line posted on cisco's (my modem company) website. I went through a very similar process that was explained by this guy but on my mac. He showed me the console and the error messages gained control of my computer, etc, etc. charged me around $170 to resecure the network and wipe the viruses of the 4 macs that were connected to the modem.

I got a few of these calls a few months ago. One time when I had nothing better to do, I played along. When he said the errors were caused by viruses, I told him that I knew about the viruses and I liked them. He said they were bad viruses, and he wanted to help me remove them. I explained that I didn't want to remove them, because they are my pets, and I want them to grow up big and strong. My goal was to train them and enter into the Johto Virus Battle Championship. He got angry, told me I was wasting his time and hung up.

I did this exact thing when they called me - I was bored and had played around for about 45 minutes. Originally he had got me to the eventviewer by spelling it out, e for egg, v for vision etc. I started having 'issues' and started spellling out the errors to him - f for foxtrot, u for uniform, c for charlie etc. I told him to suck my dick, eat my ass in the same way before he passed me off to his manager. His manager hung up fairly quickly. The kicker? The first guy who was too thick to pick up on what i was doing FUCKING CALLED BACK TO ABUSE ME! I shit you not. I remained calm and told him how much fun I had with him, he asked me to suck his dick, I said I'd love that because he sounds like a pretty boy. He was fucking furious, it was beautiful. I love the nerve of the asshole, calling back a potential target for wasting his precious time.

The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012]( What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well.

Overall music sales have fallen Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up. Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU.

Story time: An artist uploaded his own videos. They were later blocked by his record label, apparently. He then contacted his label... and was told that they didn't block his videos, GEMA did because they were in conflict with YouTube. The artist then contacted GEMA and he was told that they in fact were in conflict with YouTube right now, but didn't actually block his videos. The kicker: YouTube blocked the videos on their own, so that if they lose they don't have to pay retroactively. But they also don't say that GEMA blocked the videos because that would mean that they were wrong if they lost, so they just said the record label did. But of course, YouTube stopped paying the label for the neighboring rights as well...

The younger ones and those who actually spend a lot of time on the internet know the direness of this situation pretty well. The older ones in contrary, those who don't use the internet so often, mostly don't know about this. This also leads to the situation that, when the topic is discussed, the "older generation" mostly supports the arguments of the GEMA. The only see the side "well, of course people should pay for the music, the artists have to earn some money", but they usually don't know the other side - like those meteorite pictures. Don't get me wrong, it's not so much their fault, on the surface the topic looks different then it really is.

You don't sound like someone who knows security (especially for someone who supposedly attended BlackHat. Bad runtime environment vulnerabilities have existed ever since the beginning. These generally can be easily mitigated by disabling browser plugins. So no they are hardly regarded as "major" vulnerabilities despite their large overall attack surface. >When I walked into the BlackHat hacker conference and the contact lists of everyone entering the room were being displayed on a big screen TV because of some zero-day remote vulnerabilities... Bullshit. Never happened. >When the 'flaw' requires that the hacker has physical access to my phone/computer though... well that's my fault for leaving it unattended. Any security conscious person should have the reasonable expectation that if they leave their devices unattended - providing other people with direct physical access to their device for a prolonged period of time - that anyone can do anything they want with it. Nonsense. This is the purpose of encryption. When implemented correctly, like it is in my machines, I could leave my boxes with the NSA forever and not worry about being compromised. Mobile devices are slightly more challenging but in this case Apple's implementation of their lock screen is pathetic. It might as well be a screen saver. It is more than possible to to encrypt all the info on a disk and decrypt it as needed in RAM. Locking the screen should flush the ram and implement basic functions in hardware only resuming the OS when the pin is re-entered. Keys should be stored in a TPM or Debugging registers where they can't be dumped.

It is doubtful you can hang up in the time it takes to make the connection. As a Brit, ages ago at uni, when playing with an imate-SP5 (a smartphone pre-iphone, that had 'apps') I'd been writing such an app in the free-for-all that was WM. Slight bug in it stopped the lock screen from working, get distracted slam phone in pocket. Pocket Dials 112. Emergency operator was listening to my pocket, my converstation with friends in kitchen before I heard them make a loud dial tone sound. One profuse appology the operator simply told me to be more careful and wished me a plesant evening.

Gamestop and other physical game stores are gonna be hit hardest by this. Good. I for one could care less if GameStop's empire burns to the ground. They've literally made hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars off of used games of which the developers haven't seen a single cent of. Publishers and Developers have been extremely unhappy about this for a long time, and now the technology has progressed to the point where they can stop it. But don't worry, boys, this isn't going to be an XBox only thing. I guarantee that it'll be like this on the PS4 as well. Maybe not directly supported by Sony, but there's very little to stop the developers from integrating it into the disk. Notice how Sony has been very tight lipped about this, aside from confirming that it does indeed play used games. EDIT: For those of you copy/pasting the ol' "Used Car" argument, all I can say is that you're REALLY stretching that argument. A Car is a long term investment. Ford and Chevy don't have to worry much about the amount of used 2014 models ruining their new car sales. Most Americans own their cars for 5-10 years. Very few people Nobody buys a car, drive it for 8-15 hours, and then sell it back to the dealership. The turnover from New to Used isn't high enough to cause an issue. Also, cars are, not by definition, a necessity for most people. The turnover on games is a hell of a lot faster. A used game can be traded and sold over and over again in a VERY short period of time, taking a sale away from the developers each time. As someone pointed out, yes, those who work in the industry are almost always salary, but how many times have we seen news stories about a studio shafting their employees out of bonuses because their sales weren't what they wanted. How many times have we seen studios get shut down because their game didn't perform. It's not the big studios that need to worry about used games, it's the smaller studios; the studios that make those shorter 6-12 games that you see lining the used game rack. These are the people who live and die by the sale. These are the people who are affected the most. You CANNOT deny that used games sales affect the performance of new releases. Piracy affects new game sale (albeit minutely) and the used game market is much MUCH larger than the game pirating community. The difference is that the used game market is considered legit because, well, at least SOMEONE is making money off of it.

No.]( This is a terrible misquote. It seems like it will work similarly to Arcade games. You buy a disc as an alternative to network installation, you install the game and link it to your GT. Since your console is associated with your GT, anyone on that console can play the game. If you log in from a different console, you can play, but others cannot without you. Once you leave, the users on the other console will be prompted to purchase the game . They won't be prompted to buy your copy out from under you without your consent. That is preposterous. Why would anyone ever assume it would work that way? Look, we don't know the details of game ownership transfers, but Microsoft has confirmed that it will be fee free. Hopefully it will be painless, but I'm going to assume that there will be some sort of stipulations to avoid "abuse" (game sharing). This could be something like a timer (you can't transfer ownership until you've owned a game for two weeks), or a no loopback (you can't own the same copy of a game twice). This is the most fair possible way to allow disc-less play on multiple consoles. I don't see an alternative besides "one person buys a game, and 20 of their friends install it and play for free." If Microsoft were extremely smart, they would make linking the copy to your GT/console an option , not a requirement. If you don't link, you have to use the CD to play.

You seem to think that official channels never had a chance to make the right choice, but they had several months before the encryption key for Manning's Wikileaks-dump was accidentally released by a journalist. And "official channels" aren't typically going to do the right thing in the military. Official channels exist to protect the status quo and cover the asses of higher-ups. Even rape victims in the military are typically re-victimized by "official channels" rather than assisted in any way.

The smart move would be for Microsoft, Facebook et al to release a press statement stating that they are unwilling to release any further press statements on the matter until they are permitted to tell the truth. Then hold their position. Any further press releases can then be compared against what Snowden reveals next. Not denying something should result in less erosion of credibility than revising statements with weasel words based on what has been revealed to date. Unless of course I am unaware of any US legislation that specifically requires a company to proactively lie.

Uneducated? How are you not weary of the Kinect?? All the stuff it can do. Not what you can do with it, but what it can do. I appreciate the 'constructive' criticism. I am concerned though with how Microsoft is pushing the Kinect. Also, people forget you still have to check-in online with the XBox every 24 hrs with your XBox account. edit:

I'm distraught though. On the one hand, I've worked in government and saw first-hand that 80% of the people are incompetent and most of the systems are 80% broken. Despite being in an area of government that involved testing new "systems", those systems generally failed to meet the functionality the government ordered. In summary, the US government is almost universally inept and staffed with people that really don't care about anything but getting home as soon as possible. But it's been a few years. Now, I'm reading about all these fancy spy systems and conspiracy theories. I have no doubt that it's possible the government could build and maintain such incredible spy systems, but how....when nearly everything the government (including the military) creates is usually 80-90% useless and 100-200% over-budget? I saw the Snowden slides showing all the systems talking to each other, but in my fairly recent and fairly deep experience, I think it's 99.9% likely that most of that shit doesn't work like it's supposed to. The government has shown over and over that it can't even build simple interfaces between systems. So, I just can't see an NSA guy sitting at a desk, entering an email address, and pulling up much of anything. 90% of the NSA's systems are likely not capable of doing the work those slides would like us to believe. No fucking way all those companies databases are interfacing easily (or at all) so some guy can pull up your browsing history. Most likely, it takes 20 people months to pull up a decent report about some email address owner's internet and phone activities. Anyone who has worked with new government IT systems in the last 10 years can verify how incompetent the designers and the systems are. Obama might be right when he says these systems are being used to spy on normal Americans....because it probably requires so many resources to make these shitty systems do anything that there simply isn't enough manpower for Snowden to sit at his desk and pull up much of anything.

What this comes down to is this: Situation one: The police can use stolen evidence in an investigation. If you steal a bunch of written transaction records and drugs and money from the crack house down the street, and hand it to the cops, the cops are allowed to use that as evidence. After all they didn't tell you to steal it. Situation two: However, the cops are not allowed to ask you (or order you) to steal for them. In such an instance, you are acting on at the behest of the cops, making them the thieves. The evidence is obtained illegally (without a warrant, and using theft), and the cops are in trouble (yeah, yeah, 2 weeks paid leave - but still, it is illegal). This is a "Situation Two" scenario on steroids: In what we are taking about, we see the government's snoop agencies compelling and/or asking (it matters not which one) private companies to do something that would violate your rights if the government did this themselves. The agencies are having private companies proactively perform this unconstitutional activity at their behest, and so the fact that it is filtered through a private company is just a thinly disguised shell game. This is different from merely asking telcos: Do you retain records of domestic emails? If so, then let us see PersonX's mail for the last 6 months! We have a warrant." Instead they are saying: " 'BCC:' us on all email all the time for everyone. We have no warrant, by the way (even if we did it wouldn't matter). We know you normally don't retain deleted mail for more than a week (or whatever your policy). Start secretly retaining it for months now. We know you keep mail encrypted so only your end users have a key to decrypt their mail (as some more secure services provide) - so build us a back door. ... (etc)"

It goes further than that. The FBI was alerted by the Russian FSB (successor of the KGB) what Tzarnaev was up to. See, a disproportionate amount of extremists get their training in Chechyna (which is a very Islamic region) and Tzar had been hanging around with some unsavory groups during his visit away from the US. The FSB knew what was up and they alerted the FBI. The FBI proceeded to put him on one of their lowest tier watch lists and apparently didn't bat an eye when he started buying pressure cookers.

I didn't imply that Russia should just level all of Chechyna, merely that a big reason they didn't go full out was due in part to how stern we were acting about the loss of innocent life and, in general, civil rights. And then we turn around and do stuff like this to Snowden, indefinitely detain people for no reason, and convene secret courts and hand out gag orders.

clickbait [The register]( << N.B. That’s a link to the register, too, so don’t click it unless you want to, you know, go there. Do you mean that you think I’m shilling for The Register,^* or do you mean something else? ^* (I’m not)

An average 30 minute show is 21 - 23 minutes according to netflix and hour long shows tend to be 40-42 minutes. The figure is closer to about 30% of all airtime is commercials. I'm not very familiar with the average length of Hulu commercials, but they are definately less than cable breaks and I would expect the ad time to be a bit lower than your suggested 20%. Plus hulu gives you current shows.

It seems we have an opportunity now that many of us carry computers in our pockets. Say I walk over to a CA's headquarters. I can QR scan their public key printed on the side of their building. Next time I see my friend Clara we can bump phones to transfer this trusted CA key. If your phone keeps track of this web of trust you should be able to find the mole if there's a discrepancy. I know the 'Web of trust' is an existing concept, how about piggybacking it on top of x509 like this for the best of both?

Warning, incoming gi-fucking-gantic wall of text. Read it anyway. Allow me to ELI5 what people seem to not be getting about all of this, and hopefully clear up some FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Imagine you have two really big numbers called keys, and they're mathematically linked. One is called a public key, and the other is called a private key. Now imagine you have two algorithms, functions, sets of instructions for those two keys. One, is the encryption/signing algorithm, hereafter ES. The other is the decryption/verification algorithm, hereafter DV. If you send data through ES with a public key, it becomes encrypted, and no one (not even the NSA, assuming the numbers are big enough) can read it. Seriously. If you send data through ES with a private key, it becomes signed, proving that you (or the person controlling the private key) verified its accuracy. If you send encrypted data through DV with a private key, you decrypt it back into legible plaintext. If you send a signature through DV with a public key, it proves that the owner of the private key signed it. Now, suppose a person named Clara takes Steve's public key, she can use ES to encrypt data so only he can decrypt it (using DV). Then, she can send said encrypted data through insecure mediums like her gossipy aunt Irene. All Irene knows is that encrypted gibberish is passing between them, not what the contents are. Now here's the ploy, Clara's "friend" Eve wants to know what Clara's saying to Steve. She sets up a simple trick: She'll stand in the middle. She'll tell Clara (via Irene, who believes her to be Steve (false ID or something, I don't know how for this analogy)) that Steve's public key has changed, or perhaps some other kind of trickery that makes Clara accept the new key. The catch here is that it hasn't actually changed . Eve's made her own, and she tells Clara the new one, and then Clara starts using that new one. Clara sends messages encrypted using Eve's public key to Eve who takes these messages, runs DV, and then ES using Steve's real public key, and sends them on to him. The whole while, Clara still thinks she's talking to Steve directly, and Steve thinks he's getting messages from Clara directly, and they have no way to verify otherwise. Now lets imagine Clara and Steve are smart, and knew this might happen. They ask their friend Andrew to help out. He makes his own set of keys, gives his public one to Clara, and the following goes down. Clara asks Steve for his public key. Steve had, the other day, sent it to Andrew, who signed it with ES, verifying Steve's control/ownership. Steve sends it and the signature to Clara, who uses DV and Andrew's public key to verify that Steve actually has that key, because Andrew's private key signed it. Andrew is a trusted third party, saying that yes, that public key belongs to Steve. Now, if Eve wants to be a woMan in the Middle (MITM), she has to get Andrew to sign her key, but Andrew is loyal and won't do that. Unfortunately, Eve has some dirt on Andrew: He's been sleeping around/stealing/doing something illegal or immoral! If word of that got out he'd be doomed. So what's he do? He signs Eve's public key OR gives her his private key. The same as above happens, Eve is in the middle, Clara and Steve are none the wiser. If, by any chance, you got this far after that mess, here's the key: Cl ara and S teve are the Cl ient and the S erver. I rene is the I nternet, insecure and compromised, every byte travelling its wires and networks overheard. Eve is the E a ve sdropper, the NSA. A ndrew is the Certificate A uthority, trusted, but probably compromised. It really is that simple. If the NSA has the Certificate Authorities private key, they can make fake certificates (public keys) and sign them (ES) all day long, send them all around, and no one would be any bit the wiser. It's a trust system, assuming that Andrew is not compromised. If he is (he almost certainly is) and they bothered to run some simple software that runs on hardware as simple as that in mobile phones (meaning it's easy stuff, you don't need supercomputers to do it and if you happen to have supercomputers on hand, this is just a trivial, spare dealio to run in the background) then you can bet your ass all of HTTPS is compromised and is totally useless. EDIT: [Confirmed, it's happened once. No reason to believe that it won't or can't or hasn't happened again behind closed doors with others.]( I'm not joking. Any questions, comments? Did I miss something important? EDIT: this is assuming a targeted attack. If you're only under passive surveillance you're probably fine. The moment you go on a list though, and you become watched... consider your security gone.

i'm not putting pedantry aside. i don't know if you're being vague because you really don't know wtf you're talking about, or if you're just confusing technologies and are hoping that something between mock-british and completely-fucking-ambiguous language makes you sound like you know something special. you sound like you're reaching. good luck with that. my post is 100% accurate, so if you would like to disagree then i need you to talk like a big boy and make some god damn sense. sure, you can run mitm on an ap with some specific tricks but it's nothing like you or the person i replied to describe. not at all. capturing images here and there that are in-flight is a far cry from a screen cap, and is nothing special.

All Isp's are the man in the middle, they route your traffic and establish your connection, they know what port your connecting on and where, if they wanted to they could establish your attempt to connect to your bank to a fake bank website and you would never know. Any tcp traffic, but specifically ssl traffic requires an establishment of session via handshake. To negotiate a start, you say hey i want mybank.com on port 443(ssl traffic) to your router, it sends out the request to every router along the way until reaching the mybank.com web server. There are many of these and for some ISPs they may have your traffic/request within their network for quite some time(looking at you att) but eventually it will typically exit their network and move on to another network and so on until hitting the mybank.com server. This is like making a phone call to the operator, to call a switchboard to get a secretary or dial an extension and get the person you are looking for. Now instead of an operator pretend there is a computer doing that job, and it saves everything, to check for errors and reference if need be, however most of this is disposed off frequently as these log files would be tremendously large. With ssl connections after the confirmation you reached where you were going has been given, encryption(this is complex using symmetric and asymmetric keys to establish a session with multiple layers for reading see SSL/tls occurs your information is hidden from those who may be watching. However network access is king, hardware level access gives you the ease of saying well any requests for mybank.com on 443 connect to nsasnoops.com on w/e the want(it doesn't have to be 443 but it can be), they then make a connection to mybank.com on 443 for you and you are none the wiser. There are protections against this but again hardware level access means these protections can be overcome. This is like handing your letter off to the post man and hoping it gets to end unopened. Now it doesn't happen because there are laws in place to prevent it. But if you are the lawmaker and want to see it, if you know where they live(in this example you can not drop it off just anywhere unless you want to rely on public hotspots for internet your whole life and then yay for anonymity)you sit on their zip code's post office and when the mail is sorted they find you, read the contents and send it on its way. Hey let's go further lets say the lawmakers decide hey they can even intercept the post man because it's easier. Or worse if they wanted, why not read all of it, don't take a chance that the bad guy is "somewhere out there" take the one's with checks and money and personal information because A they need money to fund their operation and B they want to know you are you so they can cross you off the list as "not that bad guy" so you are just the "not a bad guy" list, but they need to keep this list that way if you become a "bad guy" they have all the information on you. Same with the internet and your ISP, your postman is the box that your ISP calls a modem. If they wanted to they can watch that. Protecting yourself from this would take some tricky work but it is possible(ssh server connect on no standard ports) although your just hoping they don't take drastic measures, like a U.S.A "firewall", like the one you hear about in China, I hope I never see that day in my lifetime or decide they need to see it all. This is all to stop "criminals" well how many of you have broken ANY law, even ones you do not care for like the speed limit or littering or jay walking. Well then you are a criminal, not a felon but still a law breaker, if they continue to expand the scope to what "threatens" america, well that's just a matter of degree and you better hope you don't fall into that category. Because there have often been those of power who commited terrible acts in the defense of "they threatened the (mother/father/home)land" just ask europe about individuals who have done them and just ask native americans of whole governments who have done them.

Traditionally, there was a one-year-plus-one-day time period after an attack during which, if the victim died as a result of his injuries, the attack could be considered murder. However, with advances in modern medicine most jurisdictions have removed that time limit, and now murder can be made out if the victim died at any later time as a result of the attack.

they haven't oversubscribed their towers yet like ISPs and 3G have. You had me up to here. Nobody can make this claim. The nature of wireless networks is that the load, and congestion, move around and can saturate a cell at any given time. Not only that, users often notice the consistent differences in LTE speed depending on location (work, home, downtown, etc.). For instance, my LTE service is pretty poor in my living room, but blazing fast at the office, despite strong signal strength at both locations. The reason for that is obvious: the cell site's backhaul speed is divided between all the connected wireless devices. In the best of situations, the cell site's backhual is a dedicated fiber connection to the nearest VZW switch. Even at an unlikely backhual linkspeed of 10GBPS, the site could only support about 30 LTE users at once before link contention becomes an issue. The vast majority of cell sites have a backhaul link speed of 1GBPS or less. Cell sites are often miles apart and have hundreds or thousands of connected devices. Each cell site would require many tens of gigabits per second to satisfy a 1:1 resource-to-customer subscription ratio for LTE service. That doesn't even begin to consider the dynamic movements of network congestion, cycling usage patterns, customer churn, or network growth. I also worked at VZW in the wireless data department for a few years.

I actually do something different now. Every two years, I'm eligible for an iPhone. Every once a year, I'm elgible for any phone except the iPhone. This can only be done through retention department. So what you want to do is sign a two year contract with AT&T for an iPhone 5S. Then you sell that phone for $800-$900 on eBay or Amazon.com. Immediately call AT&T CS and transfer your line from a Smart phone to a Basic phone because you're not using any data. A year later, call AT&T and have them transfer you to Retention Department. They will keep you as an AT&T Wireless customer and offer an "Early Upgrade" to any phone that is available on AT&T except Apple iPhones. I accepted their offer and pre-ordered the S4 Active and flipped it for $600-$700. I even got a $100 credit and a $35 activation fee waived and a 50% off for new wireless customers when you buy a AT&T phone. From there, you can either keep the phone or flip it online/craigslist. Then procede to transfer your line from a Smart phone to a Basic phone.

Mate, all I can say is welcome to what the rest of the world has to deal with along side capped internet connections. Btw, if you think it is bad we have Vodafone NZ have the cheek of not only having data caps but also charge an extra NZ$10 per month if you want your phone to get onto their (be it very limited) LTE network. Btw, this is only a shock to Americans because you've been living on an unsustainable model and carriers have now finally realised that assuming data growth remains the same their network will be swamped - heck, there are situations from what I've heard with the existing infrastructure where cell towers are overwhelmed to the point that people can't even make phone calls. Then again this goes back to the original problem with the US model of differentiating between tethering vs. data originating from the phones or promising unlimited data on the basis that the limited avenues of use off a smart phone would mean that the data will never be high enough to cause problems but technology has allowed more which has undermined their original models assumption.

I would just like to comment on sprint's "truly unlimited". I was a sprint customer out of south texas for about 5 years. I averaged 20 - 30gb a month until I received a cease and desist followed by a contract termination notice. Evidently they do have in the fine print "acceptable usage" definitions which is about 5gb a month. I was not hit for early termination fee but i had no recourse and can never open a sprint account again.

Actually I think the reason they stopped offering unlimited data was because the general population stopped using phones primarily for making calls, which meant Verizon was losing a ton of money because a lot less people were not going over their allowed talk minutes anymore. That's why the same time they stopped offering unlimited data, they started offering unlimited calling plans. When the first Android phones came to Verizon, it was actually a requirement to have an unlimited data plan if you wanted an Android (I think Blackberries also required an unlimited data plan as well.)

In certain age demographics, particularly the coveted 16-24 year old, definitely. But different demographics didn't have the same issues. My father is 54 years old. He's never pirated an album in his life. He used to buy 2-3 CDs every week; now he just cherry-picks iTunes. I think that's a representative example of the older demographics. Most people who were over 35 when Napster was a thing never used it. They had adult incomes--stealing music wasn't necessary. But iTunes offered a real service--not having to drive to the Best Buy/Walmart/Record Store/Whatever, flip through cases of CDs, wait in line, and then drive home. Compare to pirating. This required knowing what a torrent site was and how to use it (The file for this album is only 73 kilobytes? Wow, that is is compressed! Now, how do I make it play?). It required the primary software, a bittorrent client, along with secondary software like PeerGuardian. Unless they owned an MP3 player (unlikely until around 2010), they also had to know how to use CD burning software. The big issues is putting the time in to do all of this stuff. For teenagers and college students, the choice is often "Pirate" or "Don't listen," and there's enough free time available that this is a worthwhile timesink. For employed professionals making $35000+ a year, having someone like iTunes do all the work for them at $10 an album is a pretty great tradeoff, especially iTunes can burn to CD with 1 click in the same program. This is a generalization--obviously there were some middle aged music lovers who pirated the living daylights out of Napster, but I feel like most of them switched from buying CDs to buying MP3s.

I see it as being the more viable of the cryptocurrencies because it's a joke. See, it starts out as a joke, and is stupid cheap so it becomes widespread. then, because it's perceived as funny and relatively worthless, people use it, building a micro economy on Reddit. Over time, I feel that this is actually going to balloon into it overtaking the other currencies at their own game because dogecoin is doing what the others struggle to do: become wide-spread and used. (Phrasing!) Give it some time, I bet dogecoin gets more and more serious as a currency. The irony in this is amusing. EDIT: Thanks for the coins guys (and gals?) Let me explain a bit what I meant because some replies were rather adamant that I am an idiot. Every movement starts with a first step. The problem that appears with crypto-currencies now is that they are not widely accepted and not widely used. It's difficult to use something that is not widely accepted, and also difficult for someone to accept something that isn't widely used. If you allowed a currency to become widespread and then began to accept it, you would have a much larger user-base to start with, giving a 'boost' to the credibility. The issue that I see with other coins, most notably bitcoin is that many people are just holding onto them instead of spending them, whereas with the 'joke' coins, they get traded and used far more often, which is essential for a currency.

They all basically do the same thing, that is provide an online digital currency unattached to any government or monetary policy. The reason we have different currencies in different countries is because those countries have set up borders and defined laws within those borders, including giving the government monopoly over the issuance of currency. Thus domestic economic activity, as well as foreign demand for investment, represents the demand for that local currency. You wouldn't use dollars in the eurozone for this reason, or pounds in China. With digital currency, there are no boundaries between one and another. There is no domestic market to tie the currency to and generate constant demand for the currency. Frankly digital currencies aren't like real currencies because they have no government, domestic economy, or monetary policy attached to them. They are much more like commodities, as the acorn example describes. Their value is based off of what people think the digital currencies are worth, plain and simple. There is no underlying value and demand has no barriers to flight (people can switch digital currencies anytime without limit. You can't just choose to go from using dollars to using euros if you live in the US as stores don't take Euros). A perfect example of why there will be only one is gold. There are loads of other precious metals/gems (silver, platinum, copper, diamonds, etc.) which could serve as a value holding inflationary hedge. Heck, some (platinum) are even more valuable than gold intrinsically (it is rarer and costs more to mine). But Gold won the contest to be that investment vehicle, which is why Gold is the only precious metal traded heavily as an investment vehicle. It is hard to find a really perfect example, but gold as the only precious metal investment device is a pretty close one. The only problem is that Gold became used for this purpose over a number of years and due to its connection to currencies, so its not an ideal analogy here.

I think this is the dumbest idea. Bit coin will deflate like crazy if there can be dogecoins or whatever brand. Pick a fucking currency and be done.

I'll try to do what the article didn't explain: SystemD and UpStart are different systems in how the OS starts, manages, and stops running services. The whole reasoning behind this debate is becuase something as basic as this can cause major problems down the road. Systems running newer versions will have different bugs than the other, and can be a nightmare to fix for both. Another factor is pride. A good number of Debian developers made vast contributions to upstart. Seeing it thrown away is an insult to their work, which is enough for them to want to resign.

Most datacenters don't use consumer SATA drives in their SAN arrays and a datacenter that does is just being cheap and sloppy with data. I certainly wouldn't buy service form them if I cared about my data. I want SAS, I want RAID arrays, I want tape backup, I want a real storage system. This isn't a cloud system though, so Aereo can build what they want. no but when you are going for cheap and massive, raided sata drives work. In fact they work very well. >I think it's prohibitively expensive. you think, have you tried? >If the micro-antennas really worked as Aereo described, then there absolutely MUST be commercial antennas I can buy at Amazon that are just as small and work on a regular HDTV system. well thats a wonderfully incorrect idea, there are dozens of systems you cannot even get close to buying as a normal consumer. However in this case there are small form factor antennas available, some are about the 4 inches long. >You might argue that it's a "trade secret", but there simply isn't that much to an antenna. You could easily reconstruct them from publicly available photos, but nobody seems to have done that. And RF engineers are saying they don't work. Link me and RF engineer proving they don't work, and I will show you an RF engineer who is a moron. >Can you explain this secret revolution in antenna technology Aereo has discovered but refused to patent, market, or license which would make them lots of money? making a smaller antenna is not a patent-able invention, as its not novel. >You can do this right now, It will just cost you more than $250 a month so it's not a serious competitor to cable tv. Not necessarily, I pay 100/mo for 2u 3A co-lo here in Indianapolis. Assuming I could get an antenna in my case, and it had decent reception I would have a PVR downtown. This server has the umph to encode a few streams at the same time. dedicated hardware would do it better with less power. Assuming dedicated hardware like h.264 encoders you could probably get enough hardware in a 2U rack to handle 6-10 people. that's being very conservative. If you would like I could expand on a possible DIY solution for everything but antennas, along with a cost breakdown. EDIT: for my amusement, I did some research and some math. 42U rack + 1000Mbps here in Indy costs 950/mo assuming you built everything out of consumer parts a PVR with antenna would cost $120. It would consist of a raspberry pi, 64gb thumb stick, and a usb tv tuner. This is capable of handling 1080p h.264 at 5000kbs bitrate. You could fit ~20 of these in a 6u rack. [source]( assuming 2 for power and management thats 18 pvrs per 6u. outputting ~5Mbs out of each pvr. 7 6Us fit in that rack, thats 126 PVRs, at maximum outputting ~ 630 Mbs so we have easily enough bandwidth. Oh and storage? easy. that 64gb thumb-stick is roughly ~30 hours of DVR longer than Aereos 20hrs. assuming usb periphs and the pi use about 10W, which they likely dont we are using 1.26kW of our allotted 1.9kW. easy again. now a full rack would cost ~15k in hardware and 950/mo. assuming full use, IE 126 customers, and a 1 year ROI ~$17.86 would be the monthly fee. Rounding for end users 20/mo would net me ~$2/mo per user. or about 3K that year. Next year, assuming users stay I would make just over 30K a year.

I don't think Aereo actually worked that way (I don't remember this bit), I think you could have as many recordings scheduled at the same time as you wanted. >That means, for EACH USER, they needed 50 (or however many channels you could get in say, Atlanta) antennas and more importantly, 50 video capture cards. Again, EACH USER. Huge misunderstanding you only got one tuner, unless you upgraded to teh 12/mo plan which got you two. >Not dime size. As I said, this is an idea that would be worth VASTLY more than Aereo's DVR business. Why not sell the antennas? not really, small antennas are nothing new and are useless outside of close proximity to broadcasters. You dont even need a fucking antenna to get some channels if you live in an area with good reception. >Yup, exactly the scenario I was thinking of. If you add the hardware cost to that you might be able to get less than $250 a month, but you'd have a lot less content than cable. Still not really competitive. I already pay under 200/mo for that. It could easily handle multiple tuners, likely 6-12. >Only ONE USER per system, you don't get to legally share them. not that it matters, as I clearly posted an edit with a system fully capable of parralel operation per user that would be cheaper. However assuming you are using individual antennas, and do not rebroadcast using multiple people per system is legal. EDIT: forgot your engineer, who clearly states he has no fucking clue how it worked as he has never seen it. Primary issue with his rant, is his dismissal of the possiblity the antennas work. Which quite frankly disproves his expertise, or proves he is purposefully ignoring some facts. Anyone with any RF experience knows that everything conductive works as an antenna, for fucks sake a goddamn wire soldered to a raspberry pi board works. They have fucking chip antennas in your goddamn phone. It doesn't have a good signal to noise ratio, unless you are really close to the source, but it fucking works. [Example]( do you see that copper coil? guess what that is numbnutz thats a 434 mhz receiver antenna. He assumes you would need a large antenna, because he has always needed a large antenna. Because he was far away from the broadcasters. He is however correct in one regard I was not aware of was the mux, or multiplex. they used individual tuners on the roof convert to mpeg with ip headers, and pass that through some ethernet connect, which they call a mux, to the pvrs stored in the datacenter. This is in fact likely a few shared 10gb links. Still each device is operating individually, and this is no different than them pushing it through a border router to the individual end user. He is really grasping with that one. His quote: >Note also, in the area between the MPEG-2 Mux and Demux, the words “Antenna Transport (N x 10GBase)”. Here is where Aereo’s entire argument falls apart: You can’t receive an MPEG2 stream with an antenna; only a modulated RF channel. Calling a 10 Gigabit Ethernet connection that streams MPEG2 digital video an “antenna transport” is disingenuous. clearly misunderstand the patent. Aereo isnt claiming to received a muxed mpeg2 stream as an antenna, as that would be rebroadcasting, they are claiming to transport the antenna signal over n x 10Gbase links. Which is likely video over usb, usb through Ethernet. Which is exactly what its describing if you look at the actual [patent]( see those transcode 112-1, 112-2, 112-n? that's each individual transcoder, for spaces sake their respective antenna's, provided by the antenna control system(116), signal is transmitted though some connection type(lets say usb) over ethernet, why ethernet? its capacity and space density. He is obviously not very aware technically of modern computer capabilities, and that is supported by his notion that tv tuner chips are expensive. That is laughably not true. Also I would prefer it if you would comment on my adapted raspberry pi solution. >42U rack + 1000Mbps here in Indy costs 950/mo >assuming you built everything out of consumer parts a PVR with antenna would cost $120. It would consist of a raspberry pi, 64gb thumb stick, and a usb tv tuner. This is capable of handling 1080p h.264 at 5000kbs bitrate. You could fit ~20 of these in a 6u rack. source assuming 2 for power and management thats 18 pvrs per 6u. outputting ~5Mbs out of each pvr. >7 6Us fit in that rack, thats 126 PVRs, at maximum outputting ~ 630 Mbs so we have easily enough bandwidth. >Oh and storage? easy. that 64gb thumb-stick is roughly ~30 hours of DVR longer than Aereos 20hrs. >assuming usb periphs and the pi use about 10W, which they likely dont we are using 1.26kW of our allotted 1.9kW. easy again. >now a full rack would cost ~15k in hardware and 950/mo. assuming full use, IE 126 customers, and a 1 year ROI ~$17.86 would be the monthly fee. Rounding for end users 20/mo would net me ~$2/mo per user. or about 3K that year. Next year, assuming users stay I would make just over 30K a year. >

And the rest of the story... Lets fast forward a week to the 20th. At around 1:30pm I get a message "You do not have access to this feature at this time." I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS AGAIN! The anger is so obvious at this point the woman in the cubicle next to me happened to walk past and made a comment about how she could see anger in my eyes...even without me saying anything. I can't do anything at work, so I guess I have to deal with no service until I get home. I go home and get settled with a drink (La Croix Coconut) and load up Skype. I am assuming something else happened on my account because the last person said everything on the billing side has been resolved...hopefully the person who stole my phone didn't gain access or something. First person on the phone is "Bob". We go over the usual phone number and PIN and I ask him whats going on. He says my account is suspended because I am over the spending limit. I tell him that is impossible since the last guy I spoke with told me he took care of this and I would just make a payment on the 7th of September for everything when my autopay is deducted from my account. He assures me that "no one named Bob has ever let anyone down" and I should "have faith in Bob". He tells me to give him a minute to review the notes on the account and puts me on hold. After roughly 5 minutes he comes back on and said he has a floor manager next to him and she says the reason my account isn't working is because it is suspended due to going over the spending limit. I get that twinge I assume Bruce Banner gets right before he Hulks out, and demand to know the floor manager's name. He tells me it is Jadi. I tell him I went over this all last week and was told it was resolved so that the payment would come out of my account as part of my normal payment schedule on the 7th. I asked him who I talked to last week and what the notes said. He tells me that he doesn't know. I ask him what ANY of the notes say on the account since this is the first contact I've had with Sprint since last week. Again, he replies that he doesn't know. I ask him why he put me on hold to "check the notes" if he didn't actually read the notes?! I ask to speak with a manager. He puts me on hold to go find a manager. After roughly 7 minutes Anita gets on the line and she is going to "fix this" for me. So I go over everything that has happened over the last week, who I've talked to, what they said and told her that I just can't do this anymore I want out of this hell that is customer service. After my review of the details she says, "The reason your service is suspended is because you are over your account spending limit. You need to make a payment to unsuspend your service today." It was at this point that I lost my cool. "I just went over all of that with you and do't understand why I was lied to last week by another manager. I want someone on the line NOW that can fix this problem to restore my service!" She tells me that she was reading the notes, documenting everything and listening to me...BULL SHIT! I work in Customer Service. You can NOT read notes, document the call, AND listen to the customer. You just can't do it. She was basically ignoring me the entire time I was reviewing the situation so she could attempt to read whatever non-existant notes "Bob" was trying to read earlier in this exchange. I tell her that I just want out of everything with Sprint. Please just let me go off into the night never having to deal with Sprint ever again. Wipe my account out of all billing and dues, and I will just leave silently leaving the rest of the people on my Framily alone to stay with Sprint. I won't say anything negative or do anything to move my family and friends from Sprint...just please let me get away from this absolutely atrocious exchange. She tells me that it is beyond her abilities to do that, but will escalate this to the next manager and puts me on hold. After a 12 minute hold I am put on a ringing line. 2 minutes of phone ringing passes...7 minutes goes by...I get up to get a new drink...come back to the phone still ringing...it is at this point I start recording everything on my cell phone (it can't make calls so may as well use it for something), and I grab my fiance's phone. A female rep answers the call on my fiance's phone (I believe her name is Amy...I wrote it down but I spelled it weird). I explain the situation, give her my number and PIN and tell her I want to talk to a supervisor RIGHT NOW. Amy informs me that she is working to find a supervisor for me. The other phone line is still ringing in the background. The new rep doesn't say a word. I'm not on hold, but we are in "com silence" as we wait for a supervisor to become available. Amy doesn't say a word for 35 minutes as we wait, and wait, and wait, and wait. She tells me that she has a manager and is transferring me over. An automated line picks up and thanks me for calling Boost Mobile! BOOST MOBILE?! HOW DID I GET PUT IN TOUCH WITH BOOST MOBILE?! The Boost Mobile rep informs me that she can't help me since I am not a Boost Mobile customer. Kind of wishing that I was at this point...that rep sounded pretty nice. She informs me that she is going to transfer me back to Sprint. Tiffany in finance answers the phone and asks how she can "assist me". I go through the 5 minute rundown of everything that I have been through, fill her in on the phone ringing in the background, and vent my overall frustration all on to Tiffany. She asks if I can hang up the other line that is ringing, and then puts me on hold. Out of courtesy I turn down the volume on Skype for her. Fourteen minutes goes by on hold when Tiffany comes back on the line and says, "Here is what I am going to do for you Mr. OssiansFolly..." Hold Music . FLAWLESS TRANSITION! It is like holding out your closed hand to a child who thinks you have candy then opening the other hand to reveal nothing and running away. WTF TIFFANY?! After almost ten minutes on hold Tiffany comes back and informs me that she is cancelling my service with Sprint. I would be responsible for paying off the first phone that got stolen, the replacement phone deductible, and the remaining service fees...I've been on the phone for 2 hours Tiffany and this is no where near any resolution that I've been working towards! Your job was to get me a supervisor...stop thinking and problem solving on your own and get me a manager/supervisor! Tiffany tells me Deandre is here and will work to resolve this with me. Deandre gets on the line and tells me that he can cancel my service but I'd owe everything Tiffany told me. I take a few moments to explain to Deandre everything that I've been through and express the two resolutions that are possible. He tells me he can't do either of them that he'd have to escalate the issue to another supervisor and they would call me back with some options. I can't do that...I don't have a working phone...you guys have turned it off! Deandre tells me that they will try and contact me on the phone number associated with the account. Again, have no service how are you going to contact me?! He tells me that if I can't get calls there is nothing he can do for me at this time and is terminating the call. Dial tone I give the phone back to my fiance and I guess after an hour and a half or so of the Skype line ringing it is safe to hang up the phone and use Skype again. I call back Customer Service...we are at 2 and a half hours of this so far with no resolution in sight. Jasmine answers the phone and is the next to hear my life story, phone number and PIN. I fill her in on what I want to happen here...I want out of all costs and dues on my account...I just want nothing to do with Sprint ever again. Please put me in touch with a manager! Jasmine apologizes and tells me she is going to get Brooke (her manager) to help me out. Thank god...it is 10:30pm and I am just beat. After a few moments she says Brooke got on a call so she will be transferring me to Troy...after this unannounced hold. Thought this hold was going to be brief, but we are coming up on 20 minutes now...the hold continues until 11pm and I get a message that says "Our offices are now closed. Please call back during our normal business hours." THEY PUT ME ON HOLD UNTIL THE OFFICE CLOSED?! DID I ACCIDENTALLY CALL COMCAST?! I am now stuck with a phone that has no functionality, and a group of heartless people who I hate with every fiber of my being.

i.s.o. = instead of (saving you a whopping 4 characters typed) As a non-native English speaker, took me a few moments of hard thinking to figure out what he meant. edit: or is it in spite of? (saving 5 characters typed) edit2: no, in spite of doesn't fit the context

While I support TPB's right to exist (have to download Wild Wild West from somewhere) I've never really felt that comparisons between Google and TPB were fair. TPB's user base mainly deals in the distribution of copyrighted material, TPB itself supplies meta-data links. If you go onto TPB and look at its top 100 torrents in pretty much any category, it's guaranteed to be almost 100 percent copyrighted stuff. Not only this, but TPB have been historically resistant to take-down notices (one of the main reasons they've been so much a target of blocking). Google, on the other hand, does try to comply with take-down notices, but the volume of information that Google serves - a mind-boggling amount - that they're still serving pirated material because of the sheer size and scope of their operation. Google knows this, too, but are happy to pay lip service to the entertainment industry while also being careful not to do anything that would truly alienate their user base.

You gave the wrong person the argument. While the FCC makes the ruling there will be plenty of ways to combat the decision if it goes against our wishes. Firstly If legislation passed that directly or indirectly gives net neutrality a hold on a legislative basis that would over power the FCC ruling. If the fcc makes a decision we, the people, have the ability to petition it and possibly raise suite in a federal court for violations of our right depending on the ruling. The FCC does not make law they will make something very law like in nature but it can be over powered by legislative powers, judicial powers, and the president has the authority to strike down their ruling because it is a administrative agency he is the very top controller of it.

Not technically. The Constitution basically says a state law cannot override a federal law. However, we see blatant challenges to this with the current trend of marijuana legalization at the state level flying in the face of the federal government. The verbage of the laws can also be very tricky, which we have seen with gay rights issues (marriage, military, medical) between federal (defense of marriage, don't ask don't tell) laws and policies, and state level legislation, state constitutions, and court rulings. States also can sue the government in court to challenge laws if they have standing. Many of our Republican-held states comprising "The South" successfully challenged a Department of Justice civil rights policy in the Supreme Court so they could pass election reform that makes it harder for people in poor and minority communities to vote (since they tend to support Democrats).

On what planet do you think this is OK? Who in the hell are you or the government or anyone else for that manner to tell the bandwidth providers how they should set their pricing? The internet is not a public good, it's a privately paid for technology these days. The days of ARPANET are long behind us and if you want these companies to sink large amounts of capital into infrastructure to increase available bandwidth, you jolly well can't be telling them what to charge for the result. Moreover, all this NN rhetoric is at complete odds with reality. I have been on the internet since it WAS ARAPANET and price per unit bandwidth has been steadily dropping while availability has been increasing without big bad government involvement . Worst of all, you people don't grasp that this especially appeals to the political droolers like Obama. He and his bunch know that he got elected on a fluke. (The dislike of Bush the 1st time, and the Conservatives that didn't show up to vote for Romney the 2nd time.) These people know they cannot consistently win a straightup, fair election. Reality is biased to center right politics in the US. So ... they want to do what all Chicago politicians do - cheat and game the system. How does NN play into this? Simple, these clowns have wanted the horribly misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" reinstated. If they can get this shoved down the throat of the internet, their biggest political enemies - like, say, Fox - will be forced to give what the FCC decides is "equal time". They want this, because in the competitive marketplace of ideas, the right and center right is just crushing the other media outlets in viewership, readership, listeners, and so forth. NN + FD gives them a way to force people that support them to be given air time at the expense of their political opposition. "No big deal", you say? "I hate the right anyway", you say? Oh yeah? American politics is cyclical. Sooner or later, some version of a rightwinger will get into power. If the left has established the precedent that NN can be construed to be lead to the Fairness Doctrine - and make no mistake the droolers in question EXACTLY want this - then what stops the political right from doing the exact same thing?

You beat me to it. There's a strong opposition to the telescope among locals and especially Hawaii. There really is a fairly strong opposition or indifference to science in Hawaii, so a lot of people really don't understand why this should be built and just see it as a waste of money that's destroying nature. Petitions have been made with several thousand signatures opposing the telescope and politicians are starting to go with the opposition.

are not real. Do you have any actual proof that this as much a hoax as "we have discovered life on another planet", or are you making that false equivilency hoping I wouldn't see it? Your example has nothing to do with the situation, they are completely unrelated occurences. Just because this article has the form those other articles take, doesn't mean the science behind it "is not real". You are essentially claiming that because the scientists working on this haven't figured it all out and don't have a huge breakthrough that is all over the news, that the small anomaly that was observed is completely insignificant. Actually more than that, you called it bullshit. Now what if in a year that anomaly was the very first step to the eventual development of faster-than-light travel? Would it still be bullshit?

For media. Duh. [According to Nielsen,]( as of 2011, a combined 25% of Netflix's traffic came from either the Xbox 360 or the PS3. Given that number, I think it's safe to say that streaming media consumption is a huge use case for game consoles, and, therefore, a driving force in the purchase of consoles. Besides, even if it isn't the PS4 and Xbox One that deliver 4K content to people's UHDTVs, integrated Smart TV functionality will be doing it instead. Hell, you won't even need HDMI 2.0 to do it that way.

downvoted you for basically being incorrect, and callously lumping 'variant of iphone'. Edit : I read 'generic variant of the iPhone' to mean the iPhone copies on the market - not the chinese iPhones, but the nokia/moto/sonye/blahfoo iPhonealikes - completely different devices.

I didn't know Steve Ballmer was a Redditor. You should do an AMA! Of course, Ballmer was pitching the idea of a subscription model instead of a penny a song model you're suggestion (the artists whine today their cut 99c brings, them, I'm sure they'd love 7% of a penny!). Another flaw that jumps out to me is these teenagers aren't all sporting 160GB iPods. Most kids have an 8GB or smaller iPod nano. But you're also forgetting that most MP3 players do more than play music. A movie or TV show takes up a lot more space. So these teenagers in your example can fill up their iPods for far less than $26K . But wait! These kids are probably stealing TV and Movie content too! Is your solution to that to have movies only cost a penny too? You're also assuming that these teenagers are going to fill up the 160GB iPods they're all carrying around. I'm betting a lot of iPod Classic owners don't fill up their drives unless they enable disk mode and put other stuff on it. Or they're audiofiles and encode everything on it with Apple lossless. The fact is the price of storage comes down, the amount offered at each price point will go up. It is the foundation of the HDD manufacturer's operating model. I do agree that the music industry needs to wake up and realize their old model is broken. Digital music isn't just a new form factor that replaced the LP, 8-track, cassette, and CD. It is also a shift in habits. If you came to me in the 1980s when I got my cassette Walkman and said someday I'd be able to carry 26,000 songs in a device that was smaller than my Walkman, I would have thought you were high on that new drug called crack. What many studies show is the people that "steal" music also buy more music which makes record industry executives heads explode. Free digital music can be used as a promotional tool to drive consumers to buy the album or see the concert. Some artists and labels get that and not just the "indie" acts that you don't seem to like. The music "industry" blames piracy for falling sales. Sure that's some of it, but it also has a lot to do with the product they are offering. They want the good old days when you had to buy a $15 CD to get the one or two good songs. They're whole model is based on that for the pop acts. Now you can just buy the one or two songs you like and that makes it hard to make the lease payments on the Gulfstream. Rather than seeing digital downloads as the enemy they should embrace it. It is can be a promotional tool cheaper than any other they use now. And with P2P they labels don't even have to pay the bandwidth on the downloads! But this is the same industry that sees the threat in people putting music on YouTube rather than see it as the gold mine it is. But they'd rather keep their draconian practices and keep the laws that make. Rick Astley made a lot more money last year than he or his record company thought he would because of Rick-rolling. They didn't have to spend a penny. And early on the only money they spent was on lawyers sending tackedown notices to YouTube.

When, halfway down the article, I read "Dear visitors from google...", thought "how daft Can people be?", then saw the comment thread, I must admit, I laughed and laughed and laughed [

A microcell is essentially a low power transceiver which one can purchase/rent from a carrier in order to improve cellular coverage from said carrier with in a small range (i.e. a house or several apartments). The issue here is that the device does not connect directly to the carrier's network; instead it must be connected through a broadband connection provided by the user.

It would only be a trademark violation if someone was using the name to advertise a related, similar, or competing product. The use of the name at all under any circumstances is not protected. Target has a trademark on the name Target and the target logo, but people are still allowed to talk about targets and sell dart boards without fear of legal action.

If you read the cease and desist letter: >Accordingly, Nutrilab and Dr. Allen demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further use of any of these marks. Continued, unauthorized use of any of these marks will result in legal action to protect said marks. Legal counsel has been copied on this letter. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Your anticipated cooperation is anticipated. Are you kidding me? You would think if they were going to these extreme lengths to protect Dr. Ann de Wees Allen's name that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen would probably want to proofread her own legal letter. Also, obligatory: Dr. Ann de Wees Allen Dr. Ann de Wees Allen Dr. Ann de Wees Allen Dr. Ann de Wees Allen ...etc

okay, i'm all against facebook, but let's really break this critique down: You Can't Delete Messages First, the shittiness of this complaint and its being first on the list just speaks volumes. Why the fuck do I care whether or not I can delete messages? I have literally never once in my life deleted a message for any reason other than to make some service let me send more messages because my "inbox was full" or whatever. And, given my social media lab's research, this is true of the vast majority of people. Oh, wait... "OK, to be fair, Facebook does say that, while you can't delete individual messages, you can [...] delete entire threads." So this wasn't even a real complaint anyway? Jesus. That said, I guess maybe some people like the feature of deleting individual messages from a thread, and it's nice to give people options, so I guess this complaint could've been included as like, a footnote in an article, should that article actually be able to otherwise legitimize its title 'worst thing ever'. Non-Facebook Friends Can E-mail You I think this one speaks for itself. Why would this ever ever be a bad thing? Unless there's some spammy trick to it, and it's not true that they can just 'email you', and they have to sign up to read replies or something, which the blog author doesn't even know . I think I'd re-title this one "facebook is perhaps possibly going to try to get more users" and then sit back and wonder whether or not I can really deeply fault them for that. There Are No Subject Lines good complaint. finally. hopefully fb will go the way of most web2.0 programs and turn the first line of a note into the defacto subject header of that note, or better yet have an optional field or something. Automatic Friendships this one's a little blurry, and i think speaks more generally to the disconnect between facebook's marketing arm and its ux arm. As a whole, facebook is actually very well designed to be used among close groups of friends. The problem is that the marketing kids (driven by Zuckerberg's publicly stated "privacy doesn't exist" philosophy and a desire to get everyone onto their product) all decided that you should facebook-friend everyone you've ever known. facebook needs to just get around to putting a notion of social topology and degrees of friendship into their web model, with those notions being tied to privacy settings. it would literally take them about 1 week of programming time, and 99% of complaints i see about the service would be rendered moot. that said,

When it comes to piracy (having pirated in the past, but making an attempt to pirate as little as possible these days) I agree that stealing is stealing -- if someone creates a movie, or music, or a video game or what have you, that they deserve to be paid back for their hard work. However, I do not agree with the methods through which copyrights are put in place and enforced. TPB, while certainly frequented by many, many people who simply do not want to pay, tends to be inflated to a certain degree by the obtuse methods by which publishers enforce their copyrights.

There hasn't necessarily been "more" attacks than before. The same amount of malicious activity has been happening. Just now with the political sector concerned about it (read Net Neutrality), they are making sure that it gets reported more. It helps support their claims that the web is the new wild west and must be tamed. Unfortunately most people don't understand what they are really supporting. Safer is always good right? Another issue is that with a down economy, companies take less risks. They are much less willig to spend money on "unnecessary" upgrades. From the very basics of business/ accounting school you learn that you must match your expenses with the revenue they help to create. IT gets very difficult for this in most companies because they are entirely an expense. Very few IT departments create revenue for a company and are therefore seen as a drain. With exception to a very small number of companies, most CFOs (the ones who sign off on the new purchase orders) do not like IT because its an expense with no obvious R.O.I. With companies risking less on upgrading their IT infrastructure, you get stuck with increasingly older systems. The older a system gets, the more opportunity for its flaws to be discovered and exploited. A retailer I worked for (in 2010 mind you) has nearly all their core support running on DOS based systems - meaning they are roughly 15 years out of date (flat out archaic in tech years). The longer a company waits to upgrade, the harder it is. With technology advancing so fast, the baby steps and relatively minor system upgrades turn into IT overhauls. Its like going from a Honda Civic to NASCAR stock car. Making them less likely to take the risk. Meaning the security holes that have been there are still there, because they havent upgraded to the version of the OS, hardware, firmware, etc... that fixes that. The reason why many of the attacks seem to be aimed at the government? As stated by "fundraiser": >government organizations are on average 10 years behind, mainly because they are leery in adapting new technology that hasn't been "tested" yet.

I'm telling you if we destroy television everything will get better. Just let me destroy television. It's the reason we're not all pissed off together. A very unfortunate percentage of US citizens get all their content from the tv. The same tv that's used to keep important thoughts out of your mind. Thoughts like, "Hey free speech just went out the window WTF is going on?" Or "Wow protesters are low-level terrorists now, that doesn't seem right." An easy way to see that tv is a weapon of the corporate arsenal is to look at it in comparison to the internet. No one has ever threatened to take our tv away. No one is writing crooked bills to limit the tv. That's because the tv is already perfect for what they need. It keeps you from thinking about important things and focused on meaningless bullshit aka reality television and sports. The information that comes out of the tv is controlled therefore it can stay as it is. The internet is the opposite of tv (for now). The user has the control. Not corporate interest. We can't say whatever we want on tv but we can on the internet. And the only thing the corporate agenda hates more than our ability to say whatever we want is when we use that ability. The internet is the last refuge of free speech and that is the reason it's constantly under attack and television is not. The internet is the only thing we have left keeping us "we the people". It's the only thing left that unifies us as the people. If we decide, "Actually, fuck the government", the internet will be our only weapon. Why do you think Egypt shut it down so quickly? It was obvious that the internet was powering the problem. [

the government is a reflection of the fucking assholes who elected them. if you want to point fingers, the first place you need to point them is in your own direction. democracy is a failure for the same reason reddit is a failure. idiocy rises to the top via the american idol voting system. we are an idiocracy pandering to the uneducated retards valuing consensus over common sense because everybody is a sackless faggot too scared to point out the emperor's new clothes. as long as we put karma at the end of the carrot stick, we'll always have mindless faggots running the country.

That's what I did... Just a little bit at the end expressing the goings on in legislation recently being like some kind of authoritarian horror story, pleading they not let the nightmare come true. And it is EXTREMELY easy to do your part everyone. If r/atheism can clear $100,000 in donations for DWB, there's no reason every redditor can't do his or her part with no donation required. And we the informed redditors should take this and x-post it to all social mediums available to us.

I think we're exaggerating a little bit here. Sure, we have a shitty political situation, and sure, we have corruption, but compare it to the corruption in politics elsewhere. Here, we're worried about having our representatives bought by big corporations. In many other places, even those ostensibly "democracies", their representatives don't do ANYTHING for their constituents without some sort of bribe or incentive. Here in the US, we at least have a small minority of reps that will actually stand up for their constituents' voices. We can send letters to our reps and get actual responses without having to go crazy in the process. We can get passports, dispute our tax returns, register to vote, and get a driver's license without having to continually grease the wheels with a continuous stream of greenbacks at every level.

Okay, now it's time to begin development on VLMC. I have been waiting for this project to show significant progress for the longest time now. From what is out so far, it looks great, but is missing the stability I am used to in VLC.

Yeah, trying to do that results in an HTTP 502 error. After reading up about this company, I feel like they're exacerbating the privacy problems with social networks. It's good in that it might spark more discussion about how bad privacy is with social networks, but these guys seem like dicks. I can't even opt out, which requires me to OPT IN in the first place. What the purple fuck?

You don't have to buy domains, what's happening is Godaddy is taking advantage of the short-term "trial" period offered through the existing infrastructure to lock up domains. I believe the lock period is only something like 3 days, so in most cases after 3 days the domain will be released, and you can take your business to another registrar (who hopefully won't steal your idea) and buy the domain name there. HOWEVER, I've done some in depth analysis of "premium" domain names offered by godaddy in the past through various third party bulk scraping tools and found that the duration of a "lock" on certain unbought domains offered for sale through godaddy is highly variable. What I suspect is happening is that once a domain garners enough interest without a purchase Godaddy will go ahead, lock up the domain, and then use their own "premium" listings as a tool to test viability of a domain and predict how likely it is that it'll be purchased eventually. From there it's a simple matter of statistics to go ahead and register the domains that generate positive EV on their own.

Once again, you're completely off and you're clearly not reading my entire comment, who's the lazy one here? I know exactly what Domain Tasting is and how it works, I was never saying that it didn't exist or that it wasn't what was going on here. What I did say was that they obviously ARE NOT going to buy every god damn domain that people search on their website but don't order right away, but they are going to look for the PREMIUM ones that are either short or very memorable and perhaps buy those. HOWEVER it's more difficult to prove this then, as I or somebody else could ALSO ARGUE that they just coincidentally bought the domain name because it was so memorable or short, or it could have also been somebody buying it with WHOIS protection. You're thinking too closed mindedly and immediately making assumptions, when if you really wanted to prove your point you could have just gone and done some research, perhaps compiled a list of 20 premium domains that were available or so and then searched them through GoDaddy and then waited a few days, checked to see if they were still available and then if they weren't check to see what the WHOIS information says. However, you decided to rage at me about how lazy I was, proving that you are a hypocrite as you were "too lazy" to go disprove me properly it seems. You want to know why I didn't try and verify/disprove this? It's not because I'm lazy, it's simply because I don't care. Why would I care if GoDaddy is employing shady tactics such as this one? They're not my domain registrar or host, and there's plenty of other reasons to dislike that company. I use Namecheap for my domain registrations, as I prefer their services and customer support, and I simply don't care about what GoDaddy says or does as it doesn't affect me at all . I'm not going to try and drive people away from GoDaddy, how would that benefit me in any way? Sure I could yell and scream like you "I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT SEE GODADDY SUX YOU R STUPID CUZ YOU UZED DEM" but that's simply immature and doesn't benefit anybody at all.

The consequences in the US are pretty strong. Depending on how much money you have to throw at the problem and what state you are in you can lose your license for 12 months here too. I would argue that the problem is an underdeveloped public transportation system. Whereas in many European countries you can walk home or take the metro, US cities have much more urban sprawl. The problem is even worse in the suburbs. Compound that with the fact that the limited public transportation system that does exists stops running after midnight or 1am in many places and you have a system that makes it very easy to drink and drive. Alternatives include taxi's (expensive and time consuming in the burbs) or a designated driver. Who wants to spend a night sober around a bunch of drunks so you can drive them home at the end of the night with someone puking in your car?

The conversation in this thread has been fantastic. The debate, suggestion of idea's even proving how googles cars will not grow sentient and wipe out mankind. The internet points are meaningless now, 95% of the people who got involved in this discussion with me were a pure delight to debate with.

Which is not an issue. If you can automate all self-driving cars then traffic won't be a problem. Nor will you need to stop at intersections often. And once that happens you can set the speed limit at whatever's reasonable so long as the car can maintain control in case of an emergency. I'd say this depends on how safe you can quickly stop or redirect the car if someone unexpected happens. In other words, the speed limit won't be an issue anymore because it'll be a relic of another era. Of course, the kind of people who want to be able to push the speed limit or nudge themselves over it are probably also the kind of people who feel like weaving and aggressive driving get them where they're going faster even though 90% of the time they end up stopped at the same lights/traffic as the people they just spend a lot of time passing. The fact of the matter is that proactive driving may seem to pass the time better now because it keeps you engaged but it's not actually getting you anywhere faster . Some day they can just read a book or watch a movie.

At the moment the jobless are still a bearably small minority, but paying people to do something will become harder the fewer jobs there are. Why? People who "work" could get better pay than those who live on welfare. Today, at least in the USA and Mexico, people on welfare can sometimes live better than those who work 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job, and people who inherit money or social class can live wonderfully without working. It doesn't have to be this way, that's just the way our society has designed it, and neither welfare nor minimum wage should reduce its recipients to economic desperation. Everybody deserves enough material goods to live decently. >The moment when 100% of the work is automated will bring paradise (hopefully), but the meantime where 30-99% of people are unemployed will be hell. Only if we continue with an economic scheme in which workers are grudgingly awarded pay by bosses who are afraid of worker unions so therefore pay enough for workers to get by and earn more by competing with other workers for economic status, while the workers are fearing street crime or even revolution from what Marx called the "standing army of the unemployed." We don't have to accept this paradigm. If we switch to smiling at and respecting people who hang out in the park all day playing music and performing plays or sitting in Starbucks typing comments on Reddit or hiking through the mountains and camping and feel smug that instead of wasting our time we earned enough money by doing some things that weren't fun in order to travel to Thailand or Jamaica for vacation or buy a fancy breed of dog or horse, what's wrong with that? Our problem isn't humanity's confrontation with the planet and its resources, our social paradigm is our problem. We as a group are rich, we as individuals don't share very well. If we shared, life would be pretty good materially. Of course, this doesn't address the problems of teen angst, romance, disease, and the death of loved ones. But still, it would reduce a lot of human pain to have a social safety net measured in terms of food, shelter, and basic health care, and this is a goal that could be achieved for every living human with currently available resources, even if most of those humans are not "working." Edit:

I used to work on this technology (not with organonovo) as a research project and have a few articles on the topic as well as a co-authored book chapter. I honestly regard some of the TED talks (Anthony Atala's) where researchers have printed kidneys and are already using 3D printed bladders seems to be the state of the art printer in the field. The technology they are using I've seen at least 5+ years ago (I'm well aware of Gabor Forgac's research in the area and recognize his work) on TV. There are much more impressive efforts now and this technology seems a bit dated to me. Good luck to them for using it but who knows how far they'll get. They are limited by a number of factors and with any passing interest in 3D printing, you know that this technology not only takes a significant amount of time to construct actual 3D organs (not just the vessels they print, which the machine is set to do quite quickly). I think they'll need a different piece of tech to do that. I think they need to set their sites on making platforms for using these as model systems and maybe they can print veins that can be used as grafts, but the reality is that soft tissues are in the distant future and most likely beyond this tech.

As an aside, Jet Set Radio is now legally available from Steam for the PC. I was incredibly disappointed that I spent money on such a shoddy port. It barely runs (~5 FPS) on my brand new , $2000USD gaming PC, with plenty of horsepower. Yet it runs fine on a virtual machine running on my MacBook; my "pirated" copy also runs fine on my brand new PC. It's sad that the emulator devs, which rarely expect to see a penny for their work, release more competent products than highly-regarded engineers working on PC ports.

The most artful thing about the statement isn't the petty point-scoring in the main body but the placing of the legally required message within a thicket of technical-looking jargon that acts like chaff to the reader. The eye starts tripping over the words as the various Galaxy Tab model numbers are repeated and then, upon detecting the intimidating-looking patent number a bit later on, decides to move on to the more welcoming second paragraph. With any luck many readers will abandon that first paragraph before they read the three legally meaningful words, "do not infringe".

It's not an unusual punishment here. At least our legal system doesn't fry people with electricity or inject them with poison, while having rules against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Because when you look at the two. The only thing redeemable about a mac is that it is user friendly, if you know nothing of computers, a mac is good for you. but a PC can do everything a mac can with better quality. the thing people have a problem with is that Macs are overpriced given their current state and all the inter workings are designed so you buy and use more Apple products ex: you can only use and ipod with itunes whereas you can use any other mp3 player with any music program. thats why people dislike them

I was fully planning on it...but then the OP of this thread did it for me in his edit. Honestly he did it in a far more humorous way than I could have done it. My point was that it's not black and white. It's not simply a matter of losing a civil war. It's probably one of the most complex land disputes in modern history and it can be viewed through a myriad of different historical lenses, resulting in various conclusions. Summarizing it with THAT

Starving"? Israel gives the Gaza strip truckloads of food and medicine on a daily basis. Do you understand the absurdity? Hamas bombs Israeli civilian centers on a regular basis, for more than 12 years, and Israel send humanitarian aid in return. "Dehumanizing"? There is not a single Israeli soldier in Gaza since the Israeli retreat in 2005. Hams could have used that period to rebuild the Gaza Strip as a flourishing land, but instead they chose to pile up on their missile stock. More than 500 of these missiles have been launched on Israeli cities in the last 3 days. It's not Israel's fault it has a strong military. If you want to go with the WW2 comparisons, the US had a much stronger military than Nazi Germany. Did that make them the bad guys?

That's actually not the case in this conflict right now. Without going into the whole 100-odd year history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'll try to explain what's going on here. Israel took Gaza from Egypt during the [6-Day War in 1967]( Egypt eventually renounced their claim to the land, but that didn't change the fact that the land was almost exclusively populated by Arabs. Fast forward a few decades, and Israel is pulling out of Gaza in 2005. Gaza is no longer considered to be a part of Israel in any sense. Unfortunately, Hamas, a radical militant Palestinian political party sets up shop in Gaza and becomes the government for the region. Since then, Hamas has used the area as a staging ground for terrorist attacks, particularly rocket strikes at southern Israeli cities such as Sderot. Israel has had conflicts with Hamas since then, not so much to control Gaza as to remove Hamas's capability to attack Israeli citizens. This recent spate of violence can be traced as the culmination of a fairly bad year, violence-wise. Hamas fired several hundred rockets at Israel between January and November of 2012. In retaliation for these rocket attacks, Israel assassinated the head al-Qassam (Hamas's military wing), al-Jabari on Wednesday, and this has caused Hamas to declare "all out war" and attack even more vigorously, pouring out over 400 rockets in the past few days. Israel's intent in this most recent conflict has been almost exclusively to remove Hamas's rocket-firing capabilities. A simple glance at casualty statistics proves this: Israel has bombed over 500 targets in the past few days, but has only caused ~20 casualties (of which 9 have been confirmed to have been Hamas operatives). Israel's goal here is to destroy missile launching platforms and munitions storages. Taking Palestinian land isn't part of the game plan in Gaza. In all fairness, "taking Palestinian land" is an accusation that can be thrown at Israel, but that's more to do with the West Bank, where Israel has a vested interest because despite being primarily Arab, the West Bank contains sites that are religiously and historically important to Jews (Jerusalem, Hebron). This is where the whole "settlement" issue comes in and is a whole different issue.

The current borders of Palestine and Israel were made through good old-fashioned civil war occurring in a mandate previously held by the British. The UN proposed separate Jewish and Arab States, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs didn't. Civil war broke out when Arabs attacked Jews and when the dust settled they were left with the borders we see today. The Six-Day War happened later on and Israel was left with Egypt (up the Suez Canal) and all of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. Israel gave it all back on the condition they stop being harassed in the region.

Osama himself stated that if the U.S. were to withdraw its military from the middle east then they would no longer have beef with us, and i concur. The U.S. should avoid entanglements with foreign powers, and for good reason. The more you fuck with other people, the more likely they will start to fuck with you. Sure, they will probably still hate us, but so what? They know that if they try to engage us we can and will bomb the shit out of them, and in that case I wouldnt give a damn. But there really isnt any reason for the U.S. to get involved with anything over there, we already have good trade relations with many Arab states, and dumping Israel will free up 30 billion dollars(or w.e maybe they are extorting more this time) every year, money that would be better spent to improving the U.S. Israel should be left to their own devices. IDGAF about Palestine, and neither do a lot of other Arab countries.

I basically agree with you. I'm bad at politics because I can see both sides and just sort of go around and around in circles and can never make up my mind. I'm just saying that's the obvious response to make; note that I said I didn't necessarily agree with it (because when I think about it, all that's doing is justifying killing, which is sad and disgusting). Let me ask this: if equal numbers of Israeli and Palestinian noncombatants had died, would that make it better? Isn't what Hamas doing "targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure..,[to] coerc[e] the population through violence"? And while it's true that more Palestinian noncombatants than Israelis have died in this conflict, it's not for lack of trying on Hamas' side; if Israel didn't have the Iron Dome technology I guarantee it would be in MUCH worse shape than it is now. I'm not saying that violence justifies violence justifies violence. But at the same time I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be, from EITHER side. What is the appropriate response to the assassination of one of your citizens? What is the appropriate response to thousands of rockets being launched into your country every year by an organization whose goal is to destroy you? When I think about the situation, I get stuck with the question of "what should be done?" and I can never think of something that would help (something that doesn't include either all the Israelis or all the Palestinians leaving or dying, which is clearly not what most people want to happen).

Israeli forces, which represent a Democratic "westernized country" should be showing some type of proportional restraint and a measured response. Their Rules of Engagement do not need to include the line "If it isn't Israeli it is a target." Just as the US learned in Iraq the hard way, because your bases are receiving indirect fire everyday, going out of said freshly cratered base and shooting up your neighbors civilian district without rhyme or reason under the pretense of "deter by force" does not solve a damn thing. But no, let's go Cold War era tactics, that has proven to be the solution for this conflict.

My counter-argument for this is identity verification. Many people online use aliases to cause trouble by trolling nonstop. YouTube was a haven for this. However, when confronted with their true identities being exposed, many trolls flee back into the shadows of 4Chan. TechCrunch did something similar by requiring Facebook comments on all their posts. Sure, it did result in a reduction of the quantity of comments on each post, but the quality of the conversation improved a hundred fold.

It works better on bigger images. There's not that much grey border usually. And the design is actually more efficient - a large image opens within the same page, so you don't have to go to another page any more, making the whole thing much faster.

Wow downvotes from the ignorant I guess. I use a lot of copyrighted music in videos I put up a few years back from games. All that happens is they put adverts up, because even with a couple of hundred thousand views on some, I did not turn on adverts myself to profit from it. Because I chose not to exploit the copyright infringement, they dont care, as they make profit from my vids with the adverts they put up. If I had turned on the adverts to profit from it myself, my account would have been deleted like the guy I responded to.

It's a lot better, actually. I previously had 2007 an 2013 blows it out of the water. Word heavily relies on Skydrive, which I rely in heavily to share documents and pictures. There has been a drive to focus on minimalism as well, so there's a subtle beauty in having just a blank page to be filled up with words. Also, the animations have improved greatly, so writing feels superbly fluid. I recommend it highly, based on Skydrive alone. And you can stream Office to other computers with a subscriptions which helps when you need to edit on a computer other than your own.

If it's free, it's because not everyone uses it. If everyone starts using it, it would cause an increase in phone package prices due to the additional bandwidth usage or to add Skype data usage to your data consumption.

Hell no. Violation of one of our constitutional rights (not sure which amendment). The gov't can not legally search through anything like your texts, calls, iMessages, emails, etc. without a warrant. With that warrant they can do those things and more to find evidence. If they do so without a warrant and try to arrest you and you take the case to a court, odds are you will win because they violated your rights and the others you talked to/emailed/texted/etc.

Wikipida entry to the rescue:

The article only glances over the 'One Algorithm' theory from Jeff Hawkins algorithm that is able to grok, hopefully, increasingly complex tasks. It doesn't make sense because AI is hard. The idea uses recursion to find simple patterns at the finest grain of detail (edges, lines, color) that are to be categorized over time, then detects patterns of those patterns to find higher order things (say, simple shapes), then patterns of those patterns (objects), and patterns of those patterns (including temporarily, so you track a given object as it moves). Each abstraction 'layer' is not rigidly defined, just a collection of patterns noticed by things 'below' it, so there might be many 'layers' between finding the lowest details (think, 1 or 4 pixels pattern detection, essentially) and higher details (recognizing a circle). This is a grossly oversimplified version of the theory , but maybe you get the jist. At every level of detail and abstraction, humans are trying to make predictions to satisfy their immediate and longer-term needs/expectations, including everything from reaching for a doorknob without looking directly at it, to acquiring new words and languages. It's some clever shit.

Its just 70,000 intel chips. Call me when its 100% chinese. Buying a bunch of intel equipment and glueing it together really isn't impressive, especially for a one-party state that can do as it pleases. Funny how you can build neat things when you don't have to worry about real politics, protests, being voted out, the other party calling you wasteful, or any level of accountability.

On top of [this]( I'll include a specific scenario. Perhaps it's difficult/dangerous/deadly to break into your house and hold your parents hostage. Perhaps, however, someone has found it's very easy to update your phone's address book so that 'Mom & Dad' actually call a burner cell phone instead of your actual parents. Maybe they found a backdoor into your phone, or maybe you left the password laying around. So, they update your address book and wait. Next time you call them, the name on your phone is still saying "Mom & Dad", and you assume the phone at their house is ringing, but the guy who picks up says they're not here and demands something from you instead (money, allegiance, a pack of smokes, whatever). From the calling end, you think your parents have been kidnapped/killed. Your parents are fine though, you're just calling the wrong place and don't realize it.

Oh there is definitely value. As long as A) MtGox won't turn your butts into real money, preventing a hard crash B) speculators keep jacking with the price and C) cargo cultists keep manipulating the gap between buy and sell orders to stabilize the "value" of a random string of characters at new and impressive levels, there will always be money to be made, granted you're willing to trade butts for gift cards or moneypaks to strangers you meet on the internet and hope the price is stable while you drive to exchange them. (It won't be.)

My two cents, the stock indexes are at an all time high, everyone expects them to come down. A lot of investors who want to jump back in to the stock market aren't because of speculative pricing on all stocks. Things are being traded at 1000 times earnings when the norm is 10-20 times EPS. Because of this a lot of cash holding investors are looking for other speculative markets, and bitcoins are the talk of the town. Because of the amount of press and now the senate hearing, all these people want to jump into the bitcoin market. They saw the prices at 50,100, 200 and now 800. So whenever the bitcoin price falls, seeing a discount, you can be rest assured that a lot of folks will be buying it driving the price high. And the cycle continues till there are better returns elsewhere.

I always see a lot of cynics in these types of threads calling this type of deletion guide useless, and I feel in most cases, the arguments that they're making are strawmen. Yes, for all intents and purposes, once information has been made public, it's largely out of your hands to ever completely remove. Yes, some servers will likely still hold your info, partially to fully available. Yes, you're probably not going to be able to hide info from the government or a sufficiently motivated/advanced attacker. But the vast majority of people will never have to. Sufficient security is all most people will ever need, and this kind of guide is meant to impart that. Consider a four digit bike lock. A person with the right tools, or enough time and tenacity, will always be capable of stealing your bike. But, the time it would take to do so and the fluid, public nature of the space make your bike sufficiently secure that you can feel secure to leave your bike unattended. Data and personal info are similar, in that sufficient security by deletion is all most people ever really need. For most people, a good deletion is perfect, and discouraging it is a bad thing. Why? First, deleting info prevents it from being further archived and stored, plugging the source of the leak. Second, and more importantly, if done correctly it largely removes the information from the clearweb. This is important, as this is how roughly 99% of people sniffing for information and low level attackers will find out what they're looking for. Once you've removed google as an effective tool to find sensitive info about you, it quickly becomes a hell of a lot more time consuming, difficult, luck based, and, potentially, expensive, to get your info. It largely doesn't matter if your data is stored on physical servers if an attacker first doesn't have access to those servers and can't successfully search to find information that would otherwise be missing.

I derail shit like you from poisoning the conversation. That's positive contribution, motherfucker.

And yet, if you look at vimeo's content, the production quality is much much higher than youtube, and youtube's revenue sharing program don't generate much money unless you're part of a network.

Picocells are not a groundbreaking technology and do not serve the same function as cell towers. While a great way of offloading data, they are impractical to deploy everywhere. In dense areas (or at home) you could create cellular Hotspot, but not in the same way we can with towers that cover miles of roads and suburbs. Next: you still need a physical network connection for picocells to work well. Ad-hoc connections are getting better, but at a huge penalty in performance. Want 1Gbps speeds? Well you are not going to get them on a 60hop network, and boy is your Round Trip Time (think lag for games and phone calls) is going to be high. Source: Networks Researcher working on PhD.

I keep seeing this same bullshit over and over again, and it is only marginally less disingenuous than "you wouldn't steal a car ." The fact of the matter is that actual capabilities (including data transfer capabilities) should drive industries. You have to create a product that adds value given the current technological/economic environment. Back in the day, it was actually expensive and difficult to distribute content. Movie theaters, employees, records, and so on. The distribution channels were both important and a large value added to the content which they distributed. Today, the game has changed. Distribution is incredibly cheap and incredibly easy . But many companies still believe they are entitled to the same business model. Such as retransmission fees for television, or pay to view once like an old-school movie theater. They just want to keep the same antiquated and inefficient model in place because it makes them a lot of money, even to the detriment of both the content creators and the consumers. I want to pay the content creator directly, and only for content that I like. Bundling, vastly excessive rates, limiting how I can view or copy content I have paid for, and anticompetitive business practices are the enemy . Everyone is a fan of someone's work, and wants them to succeed because they like their work, not because they think that person is "entitled." The fact of the matter is that a more efficient marketplace is better for content creators and for consumers. Smaller content creators have a better shot at recognition without a massive gatekeeper determining who gets paid and who doesn't, because consumers directly choose from among all the creators. This also means, of course, there won't be pumped-up artificial megastars backed by ridiculous amounts of marketing from gatekeepers trying to inflate the industry to turn a buck by carbon-copying shit every year. For example, Louie C.K.'s experiment of selling his content at a reasonable price directly to consumers over the internet. Wildly successful. No pointless middlemen to steal his (deserved) revenue. The content creator makes content that people like, and gets paid because those people want to pay that content creator. And it makes sense to use P2P technology for distribution because it is more efficient than HTTP or FTP, especially for distribution to millions of people for very low cost. You have to come up with a product that gives people value before you are "entitled" to anything. And the current dinosaur industries that collect all the money for "content" and perpetuate this bullshit about how piracy is "killing the industry" are doing it for their own profit, not for the good of the artists. More efficient distribution systems help artists because they no longer NEED the middlemen to act as gatekeepers to the consumer. Very low distribution costs mean that artists and content creators can deliver their product themselves instead of handing the lion's share of the profit to the middleman.

And then the data your little snowflake algorithm receives is wrong, and now there's an extra branch on your formerly perfectly elegant snowflake that's there just to compensate for one type of bad data. Then a week later something else breaks because their data had a chinese character in it. Then a week later SQA decides to test a username that has 1200 characters in it, and now your snowflake is a tangled morass of clusterfucks where you thought you did something really great it's forever a blight on your ego because of something someone else didn't account for.

if the technology industry is truly a meritocracy, does it follow that the people with merit are overwhelmingly white and male? For the last software dev job I applied to, the male applicants outnumbered the female applicants 10:1, yet the 20 positions were filled by 11 men and 9 women. Assuming a fair cross section of young technologists, there's affirmative action in play. If the most junior levels are mostly make because not enough women are applying, then you can't expect a different demographic higher up. The problem is not with industry. No one wants gender equality in the workplace as much as men in the industry - the problems are outside of google's control. As for the race breakdown, that reflects the breakdown of college grads pretty closely and doesn't really say anything.

Here is what I wrote them: You know what? I wouldn't have a problem with most of these deals with fast lanes. No really, you read that right. I wouldn't IF I had choice in who provided me my internet. You see, where I live I have two choices. At&t or TWC. Most people in the US don't even have one choice. A lot of Americans are still using dial up! In 2014!!! So when you put even more power to regulate in an industry's hands that really doesn't compete with anyone but itself, it can only end bad for the consumer. Just imagine if the government allows Time Warner and Comcast to merge. They would have too much influence on what to charge customers, what to charge networks to broadcast. How much bandwidth you can use per month. And you have just created another "TOO BIG TO FAIL" company. Want to play online games? I hope you signed up for our 4.99/month fast lane for that. Want to watch netflix at a reasonable resolution. Hope either you've paid your fast lane charge, or netflix has also. I say you open up all territories and allow everyone to compete freely. How bout make it so the State/town owns the copper/fiber and companies actually have to compete on even grounds.

Who the hell wrote that title. Online data does have 4th amendment protection. The 4th amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The judges ruling in this situation: > Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. It is the very definition of 4th amendment protection. The government has to have a warrant . If the judge had instead said: > Overseas records must be disclosed domestically even when no valid subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. That would mean online storage has no 4th amendment protection. But that's not what the judge said. The judge said online storage has 4th amendment protection. Do i like it? No. Do i believe a judge should be allowed to issue warrants to compel production of evidence? No. I believe everyone should be free from all searches or seizure (even reasonable ones, backed by a valid warrant). If a guy tweets some child porn, I believe Twitter should be allowed to tell the government to go fuck themselves. But that's not the world we live in.