Datasets:

jkruk

/

tech-data

like 0

Another win for Reading Comprehension. Was it

I was thinking that when I read it and am not surprised you ended up with down votes. I"m a retired attorney and I see so much stuff in threads like this where the analysis is weak and lacking. A lot is so often way off the mark it spins my head. Notice how this person used a very long, well written post. A lot of people in these types of complicated issues (1) don't have the knowledge to even do this, leaving discussion mostly rife with speculation; and (2) with the invention of

looking in your post history, you're German. I know the government of Germany now isn't the same as the Nazis, but you can't act like you have a clean history Edit: ok, obviously I'm not saying Germans who are alive today are responsible for the Holocaust. I'm also not saying we should be blaming the current German government for what Hitler did. That said , his original comment was that the world would be better off if America didn't exist. Between the two histories, which nation has done worse? Maybe you could argue that what America did to the Natives was worse, but at least you're having an open conversation about it, then. The two reasons he lists for Germany being better than America are two things his country has a history of doing. Can we honestly say that Germany's relative peacefulness has nothing to do with its history? Would Germany be so gun-shy if it didn't have the history of aggression and horrific war crimes? No, we can't cling on to the past and refuse to move on, but we also can't forget history.

The problem is not what technology will be able to do. The problem is that the government is taking the control of that technology away from us. There is no way to stop this data collection but we can demand means to individual access to that information and legal protection over what can and cannot be used in court for example.

What I can't fathom is the misuse of such a powerful program. By NO means am I saying this was justified, but if the gov't has the ability to track on such a scale, and the willingness to bypass laws on the constitutional level, why are they using it to track citizens? Criminals around the world more than likely use the tracked programs for a myriad of criminal activities. Why hasn't someone looked at this and thought "damn, we could put a major dent in some crime with this thing"?

This is where we have to [knock off the bullshit and get to the point]( This isn't about Manning, if it wasn't manning, it would be some other "troubled person" that saw injustice in the systematic abuse of human rights, that just was not comfortable with US citizens and the world having the wool pulled over their eyes about serious war crimes and other criminal activity that the US government, and US corporations, are engaging in every single day

This isn't considered anti-competitive. Google has every legal right to dictate the terms for developers that want to make their own native YouTube apps. Not only does Google have the right, but they have the fiduciary duty to demand that ads are showcased as they have engineered it. YouTube is ad supported and without those ads YouTube won't exist. As a customer I can understand your frustration, especially since I don't place much importance on ad views, but as a business owner I agree with Google's decision and I reiterate it is not anti-competitive behavior. They are allowing anybody to use their API to create their own native apps as long as they adhere to their very reasonable terms & conditions.

It's just a giant corporation and so it acts just like a giant corporation. Microsoft is older and so it seems like they are the bad guy, but we have all the time in the world for Google to catch up and as we can see they are doing just a wonderful job at it. As long as the sun rises, giant corporations will pull this anti consumer bullshit. I'm not even part of the anti corporation bandwagon, I'm just surprised at how anyone thinks any giant corporation isn't going to pull this shit. They have a single goal, to make a profit and as large of a profit as they can legally manage. They go out to achieve this goal armed with an immense amount of resources and talent. They hire the best lawyers in the world so that they can tap dance around laws with what you could almost call grace. So when one of these guys can just write a few lines of code (probably much easier than a few lines of code at this point) to gain a leg up on their competitor then they are obviously going to do it. This is the low hanging fruit on a tree of fuck the consumer. When you have a group of people with a single vague goal, like make as much money as possible for example, and almost infinite resources to do so, they are never going to make the choices that are for everyone's benefit in the future even if it would only cost them a penny. I'm not calling for the destruction of corporations, I'd just like it if people would view them as they are. If a ceo makes you "fall in love" then you should be really fucking worried, he's certainly not looking for a soul mate. Steve Jobs didn't get up on stage in a black turtle neck and always have "one more thing" so that he could make sure we all had the best possible experience with our electronics. He did it as a way to make his closed garden seem more appealing and magical. He did it because it was Apple's investors who he was trying to impress.

YouTube is accessible in WP8 via the web browser, just like it is from every platform. So, service is not being denied to the platform. All of YouTube's core functionality is perfectly accessible on WP8. When YouTube provides the API for its service, it reserves the right to dictate the terms and usage of the API, however it seems fit. Google doesn't have to supply or allow any further functionality on WP8. If users are unhappy with the YouTube experience on this platform, they should consider moving to a platform, which has a better experience

The fingerprint reader doesn't actually read a fingerprint but the skin that's underneath the first layer. There's very little use for that other than to unlock your phone. The "fingerprints" are stored on a separate memory module only accessible by the fingerprint sensor module. Even the OS doesn't has access to it. This will be verifiable when the device comes out. The memory module doesn't actually store fingerprint images but logaritimic data that's encrypted. Even if someone could read that data, and was able to decrypt it, it still couldn't recreate your fingerprint or the sub-dermal layer which the fingerprint is actually reading. Even if all this is a bullshit and you can't trust NSA/Apple, you're carrying a freaking smartphone in your pocket that know everything about your digital life, your phone calls, your location, and can listen in on conversations. So fingerprints are really the last thing you should be worried about. So,

This is the state of our deplorable tech news reporting when you are failing to innovate because your last innovative product was a whole three years ago.

Innovations come out of labs not out of big companies. Big companies release stuff that can be properly advertised about, and innovation is not always compatible with advertisement. Who is innovating ? All small companies innovate. Are the innovation brought to consumers ? No, because those companies don't have audience. Innovation is not relevant in big business, only how you advertise your product and how it can attract consumers is relevant. Innovation cannot be improved because improvements can't be explained to consumers. At this level, innovation does not always translate to consumer choices, it only does when consumer learn how the technology really work. Products and innovation are mutually exclusive. You can't bring innovation to consumers because innovation cycles require research, which is not compatible with product making improving cycles. People will say Apple innovate, they just picked napster and made a business out of it. The iPhone is just a tinier computer with a pretty good battery.

He's right, they don't. Their last innovation was the iPad which came out... How many years ago now? Since then, they're just been making minor changes to their products, and branding them like they're brand new, and people buy it! I wish they did something new, and creative, something that people have never seen before like they originally did with the Apple I, then with the iPod, then iPhone, and iPad. No great leaps have been made recently at all.

Just because someone browses and comments on /r/apple doesn't mean that they are a fanboys with an iPhone, iPad and macbook. I like to see many different sides when I look at something. Yes, apple does need to get in the game with NFC, it's going to be bigger than anyone expected it to be in a few years. You have a few very good examples of that. You have to remember that apple just released 2 new iPhones. the 5s is the first ever phone to have a 64 bit chip, the A7. I would read more in this short article. The iPhone 5c now, it's a tiny bit larger and heavier than the 5s. It isn't nearly as fast as the 5s, but the average consumer will hardly notice the difference if they aren't stressing it out too much. The 5c also comes in 5(?) different colors, which might not be appealing to you, but there are many people who like it (including I). When people complain about the 5c being made of plastic, it really infuriates me. It's not going to be flimsy plastic from a junkyard, it's going to be hardened plastic with multiple coatings making it about as durable as the metal. Believe it or not, there are different kinds of plastic. This rant has gone pretty off-topic, but I'm going to leave it here anyways, downvote me if you want to.

First, here . The fingerprint ridges can be reconstructed by the E-field map sensed. At first this may seem like a very difficult task because you think they only make the model of your finger once and then compare all future scans to that original model, but this technology actually improves the model every time it scans your finger. After enough uses, it's certainly plausible that the ridges can be reconstructed from the stored model. It's very easy to have a backdoor to the fingerprint model. The model will be stored in the A7 chip [0:55]( so good luck verifying that there are no backdoors. Saying that the data is encrypted therefore the NSA can't access it is just stupid. Apple is the one that implemented the encryption, you think they can't just decrypt it and send it to someone else? The fingerprint is not the key because that's what they are storing. In the [video]( they carefully say "this data doesn't get backed up to iCloud or onto Apple servers in any way". Apple doesn't really care about your fingerprint, but they can sure make a lot of money by giving it to the NSA so they can store it on NSA servers.

Content is expensive. Hulu's entire subscription fee goes to the cost of content, as does most of the revenue from advertising. Hulu itself is entirely funded from a fraction of the advertising revenue - and they have razor-thin operating margins: they make pennies per viewer. They are also contractually bound to have commercials in some instances, because that content is also airing on TV. Hulu knows that you don't like it, but there's nothing they can do. This is the best deal you get if you want to watch television shows on the internet.

It's not just the commercials, but the ever-so-gradual creeping of the length of the commercial break . It started out as one 30 second commercial. Then, it became a 30 second + 15 second commercial break. Then two 30-sec commercials. And now, it's 30+30+15. Seriously, if it gets to the point where it takes me 30 minutes to watch an episode, I'm canceling my subscription. It's near that point where very little separates Hulu from an on-demand service that prevents fast-forwarding, and the latter may have shorter breaks.

What do you mean, 'simply upgrading?' Try this for an alternate view:. It's not cheap to always have to upgrade, especially when you're in a lower income bracket (I'm on a disability pension). I had my first computer for twelve years because even when I was working, I couldn't afford to upgrade. My current one is eight years old and was used as a shelf by its previous owner.... The so-called advantages of upgrading are a blind in themselves. The only Windows I haven't ever used are NT and 2000, so I know next to nothing about them. The only worthwhile ones I know were 95, 98, and XP. Millennium was extremely buggy, Vista hard to use, and W7 is so over-rated, I don't where to start. It has constant problems, almost as many as Vista. I'm constantly fixing this for friends. Yeah, you might want to think about that - I'm fixing later versions than I have because they are so full of bugs. The user interface for Windows 8 is a fucking joke. Using the desktop is better and so far, seems to be fairly stable. A friend's daughter is using it and is happy with it. Haven't had to fix that one yet and she's had it a while. That at least is promising.

Motorola is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google that has begun a number of lawsuits since being acquired and Google allowed many in-progress suits to continue after it was acquired. Surely the benevolent Google saw it fit to graciously end [this injunction]( after getting their hands on Motorola? Maybe the company that would never use patents offensively has some other reason to explain [this](

The annoying bullshit about this entire scenario is that the way that the entire ecosystem of patents works is that everyone nods at one another and licences out their patents for incredibly small sums per unit. Because the SCARY part of this is the patent list that Google has. Google has the goddamned nuclear football of cellphone patents. They have Motorola. Think back, way back to the 90's and the branding you saw back then. You saw two names on cellphones; Nokia, Motorola. While Nokia made excellent day to day phones, refined design of known precepts. Motorola was the days samsung, crazy bells and whistles, new features, new ways of using the air. You cannot use internet based telephony devices without motorola patents, they were genesis of all that we know for this day and age's method of communication. Now look here This is the location of the new motorola factory, oddly enough, it's in Texas, might not be the eastern district... but it might be close enough to make a very big political point. All of the above rambling is to make the following point salient: The entire software patent system works within a series of handshakes and winks, everyone pays a little, so they can put out their products, no overly large egos get bruised. What has occurred is VERY scary if Google plays hardball. The US's patent system if flexed via Motorola can completely cease the existence of Apple as a company, Nokia from distribution, BlackBerry from ever releasing a product from now until doomsday. Microsoft, Apple et al fucked up and they fucked up really really badly because they are taking the insane dominance of the old software firms from the 90's and NOT taking with them the buddy buddy system that allowed Silicon Valley to exist, and laterally, these patents.

Unless Google has advanced to the point where they can perform over-the-air hardware updates to re-wire circuitry, this would be impossible. The article says they are hardware patents which is precisely why sellers of Android devices (Sony) are members of this shell corporation launching the lawsuit.

Is it common for people in your profession to go from "software patents should not be allowed" to "you want a world without patents"? Nobody said anything about eliminating all patents - patents are good. For a really good book I suggest The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention - it is more about patents and innovation and patent rights than anything else and it shows how patents are vitally important to supporting innovation. But the specific patents I mentioned - that you ignored completely - show that there are a lot of stupid and idiotic patents out there that the patent examiners (who are famous for claiming that they don't have enough time to give an honest review to the patents that come across their desks) are granting. The only reason why it is "considerably more complicated" is because the patent attorneys prefer it that way because it provides job security. It doesn't have to be complicated, it shouldn't be complicated, but a smooth, open, easy and transparent system results in a lot less cash for the lawyers and eliminates the patent trolls who hire them. Yes, I am ignorant on all of the subtle tricks of the trade. I don't know all of the overly complicated ins and outs and I'm pretty happy about that. I haven't had the time, money, need or desire to learn a system that has been intentionally obfuscated to the opaque sludge of a legal system that is more concerned with job protection than transparency, simplicity, and public participation - none of which result in fat paychecks (good for the profession) and public scorn (bad for the profession, but easily overlooked with the fat paychecks). Here's a clue: when you have a system that results in an entire town's economy being based on lawyers who come in to do IP battle then many things are wrong on many levels - you can start with judge shopping.

Minor correction regarding your examples: As I understand it, since the Coke recipe is a trade secret, if you can figure out the exact recipe on your own (without just breaking in and stealing it or something), you can make and sell all you want. The fact that they never patented it is what has allowed them to keep it a secret for so long. The trade-off you get when you patent something is you get the exclusive rights to it for a set amount of time (20 years), in exchange for disclosing it for others to use after the patent expires. By not patenting the Coke recipe, Coke has been able to protect it for much longer by keeping it secret. Likewise, I think the Google search algorithm falls in the same category (trade secret, not patent). The thing protecting it is the fact that it's a secret, not that it's patented.

Did you know the original android devices were meant to have a button keyboard? Did you know by the way that android was made a touch screen was an entirely optional method of input? Did you know the touch screen keyboard was only introduced to android two and a half years after the iPhone introduction? Did you know that a nub wasn't optional and android required it? Android was all over the place and had no direction. It may seem strange to you, but the touch oriented OS that android is isn't even close to what it was from the start. Take [this demo]( He is using an android phone without a touch screen at all. He actually used that phone for 6 months. Can you imagine using an android phone without a touch screen for 6 months? When you skip to [here]( he talks about a phone with a touch screen, which is considered an entirely optional "high end" feature. Even on the high end touch screen phone he still uses a nub for navigating through menus and selecting things. Why? Because it couldn't be used with touch alone. On this high end touch enabled phone he never once uses multi touch, and he uses physical buttons to zoom in and out. Now consider that the iPhone was launched 5 months before that android video with the clumsy touch gestures which only work in certain apps, and a nub oriented ui. The first iphone prototypes had touch screens by default, as that was the intent. The mission statement was "lets make a phone that is touch only" . The iPhone had 'ridiculously' huge buttons that took up way too much space because they were meant for fingers. Android was not plagued with the 'built for finger usage' ui. It is important to note that early versions of Android didn't even have the option of getting a touch screen keyboard. Touch was tagged on, fast. Touch wasn't even close to their main focus. I wouldn't be surprised if they added touch support entirely after the iPhone announcement. Now take the first android device ever launched. Android also obviously abandoned even supporting non touch devices and went touch only. There were and still are alternatives for how smartphones are to be used. It is hard to see it now, but you just need to look at history to see that Android that exists now is not even close to Android that existed back then. It is also undeniable that Android wasn't meant to be a touch OS, it just became one over the years. The early versions of Android didn't, and couldn't be controlled with a touchscreen alone. There is no doubt in my mind that without the iPhone, Android wouldn't have sped towards a touch only OS the way it has now.

A couple of reasons. The first is about legal compliance, most simply is that the major players cover themselves by responding to takedown notices and playing nice in public. They also charge for storage not for number of downloads. Small differences I know, but important ones. To be liable services generally have to be profiting by piracy, actively encourage piracy, fail to combat piracy, and have no substantial non infringing use. The other reason is that Google is the eight hundred pound gorilla. They have a whole team of lawyers and lobbyists of their own. A number of cases show Google is more than willing to fight legal battles and as they've complied with the letter of the law they'll win.

Original post author here) This is why I keep trying to tell the reddit admins we need a better system to filter people into smaller subreddits. I made a free tool to do just that: Co.Design did a great writeup about it if you need a

I've been reading Reddit since it started. Lurked for a year or two, then created an account and change accounts every 2 years or so (used to be an issue that accounts with karma would get more karma only because they have karma). Back then you open Reddit and on the first 2-3 pages you have all the most important news and info from around the world. It took a pretty major story to hit the front pages. Then it went to "NSFW and Programming" as the title suggests. Things became far more tech related. NSFW just meant NSFW, not the porn collection it is now... just stuff you wouldn't want to open at work like a gory news story or a story about sex. Then the "funny" started. Everyone needed to be funny, and it started getting more popular. Not so much it overwhelmed Reddit, but enough to get the generic core Reddit submissions shut down so they all needed to go to a subreddit. THEN came the Digg shutdown. In about 2 months time the mass submissions started. Accounts that would be submitting 500 articles a day, 24 hours a day. Mass upvoting started... whaere previously a comment/post with 1,000 upvotes was incredibly rare, now there are posts with 10,000 upvotes. The Digg shutdown was the biggest change to come to Reddit, and the worst. It fundamentally changed how users used the site and broke the entire system of voting. To this day many users would be surprised to learn that you are NOT supposed to up/downvote posts simply because you agree/disagree, but ONLY because it adds to or adds nothing to the discussion at hand. So it is what it is. You now need to log in and change the subs you are subscribed to. But even then you are forced to weed through off-topic posts to see what you are looking for. Want to see interesting pictures in /r/pics? Better weed through meme's and weight loss pics.

I can tell you from experience that Supermicro is not way cheaper...In the last month, I had a shoot off between HP and Supermicro regarding desktops. Not just ordinary desktops but high end desktops: Dual 8-Core E5-2690's with 128GB RAM and Quadro k5000 cards. Both systems came in to the lab and it was apparent right away that the SM was going to have issues. The build quality was utter crap. Cable management with plastic twist ties, practically no air control shrouds and I believe the case was made from steel, not aluminum. Compare that to the HP model (z820) When I opened it's case, it was like lifting the hood of a Lexus: Complete air/fan control with full shrouds. All components are tool-less on this chassis, making everything super simple to get to. Inside, there were NO CABLES because they were all managed with a high degree of care...Not a single cable made its way into any air/fan control systems. The build difference was night and day between the two. Now lets talk about support. I ended up buying about 50 of the HP's and about 200 SM's (in a 1U config : render farm) for a project at work. Fast forward a few months: The SM machines started to cook their RAM modules. Support consisted of a 3rd party company who fumbled his way through the lab to install better RAM modules that had heat syncs on them. Imagine that: Not using heat syncs for high density, high heat situations like a render farm. FAIL. The HP's developed a strange problem of their own: The central fan chassis had an issue where they would power on at full steam..Very annoying to the end users when their desktop suddenly turns into a 747. 1 call to HP support at 6pm in the evening led to new fan kits delivered THE NEXT MORNING by 8am followed up with several phone calls from them asking if everything was OK or if they needed to send HP support to the site to help with the situation. Both HP and Supermicro systems were nearly the same price.

Privatization is good when competition is a factor. Look at it this way: Except for very specific circumstances, customers benefit when the responsible parties are held accountable to the greatest extend possible. For most business this means privatization; the company is held accountable quickly and measurably because customers take their money to a competitor. Competitor grows, company shrinks, and so goes the free market. This is not applicable with monopolies or even duopolies. Customers have no recourse, so there is no accountability. This is why monopolies are illegal, although the last 40-some years we're back to having to deal with them. For monopolies or companies not participating fairly in the free market, like Broadband or even cell-phone service, then making the business public becomes the most accountable form of administration. Politicians are atleast held accountable on the local level.

While lawn watering isn't an issue in Scotland we do have "free" water paid through local council taxes (so my water rates increase with the size of my house). I currently have a 3 bedroom flat and would pay £126 ($215) yearly, if I wasn't a student and therefor exempt. From my experience Scots take some pride in our water, we get really mad if anything is wrong with it and feel (slightly) insulted when a tourist doesn't trust it. It's cleaner, clearer and without taste compared to the privatised English water system, which requires bans on watering the garden in hot summers (However the English system does have a higher population density to deal with). I'm fairly certain Scots use more water than other nationalities, for example I think everyone's careless enough that they don't bother to turn the tap off while they're brushing their teeth etc. Water and money aren't linked in my mind so I don't feel bad about this. The "free" water is especially good for poor/unemployed families, your kids can always be clean, you don't need to worry about all the water you're using for baths/showers (obviously you'll still need to heat it). The water is probably a good example of why many Scots would like complete independence from the UK, many feel the UK system is just about making toffs money and think we can do it better (and in water we're already doing it better).

As a McDonald's worker... I honestly don't think this will ever happen in our lifetimes because of how expensive it is. Service times would actually slow because the burger wouldn't start to be made until the order has been paid where as now sometimes it is almost down at that point. There is cheaper ways to achieve high quality and quick service. It allows for less change in menu items.

The emmy WiFi connection is the most credible of all of these. It is not a massive leap to assume that the WiFi connection used at the emmys was not well secured, if it was secured at all - the vast majority of public wifi connections are totally unsecured. Even if the connection was secured, it was probably using old equipment that had vulnerabilities in their WiFi stack that the hackers exploited to be able to MITM all of the attendees, recording all their raw unencrypted packets two/from iCloud/Drop Box/Google... and if they could not compromise the accounts there, then maybe they got enough information to compromise them later.

You can be embarrassed. Many people can laugh at their own embarrassment. When I say "consequences" I mean getting fired. Frankly, I don't think any of these girls should lose any deals or the like due to this, but sadly some might. Some companies that target tweens may not view some of these girls as "appropriate" anymore which I disagree with it. I don't think someone's private, behind close doors behavior should be held against them for either what it is, or because someone found it and revealed it. Because we are so repressed shit like this exposed and people care, or rather they feel like they should care, so they react stupidly. I wish people would not be so shocked at this. To me this should be seen as normal behavior that you don't happen to see often. Sniff all the ass you want, I don't give a flying fuck, I don't see it as wrong or anything of the like, I just see it as their thing.

My gf actually had one of these on her last car. She bought it from one of the BHPH places in her home town when she was in high school, and they told her about the device. They said it would prevent the car from starting and that there was no risk of it turning the car off while she was driving. What a load of shit that was... She was driving home from work in the winter (dark outside) on the interstate, the same day her payment was due, and the loan company flipped the switch. Suddenly her car had no electrical system beyond the capability of basic driving function -- i.e. no headlights, heat, interior lights/gauges, etc... She freaked out and almost had an accident because of the half-assed loan company mistakenly hit the button. She had to contact them and let them know what they did/happened, and they had the audacity to not even apologize or rectify the issue. The company went on to do this to her like 2 or 3 more times, on one occasion the payment was already received but the person flipping the switch failed to look at her account. Eventually, because of how the device was hooked up, it fried her entire electrical system. The loan company admitted that the device was hooked up incorrectly, and refused to compensate/repair the car. Needless to say, she got a new fucking car.

I have the grandfathered "Unlimited" plan and for the past 3 months they've been saying I've gone over my limit. I think they have been overstating my usage. In no way have I increased my data use. I've filed FCC complaints each month. I'm getting really tired of AT&T's bullshit, they're almost as bad as Verizon these days.

Just got off the phone with AT&T earlier to cancel my plan. I'm getting 12mbps down while paying for 18mbps down. First they transferred me to DirectTV, where in that DirectTV rep hung up on me. Called back to AT&T only to have them explain there $135 cancellation fee and that there is a 48hr "restriction" on my account barring AT&T rep from making changes. This "restriction" only came about after I said I wanted to reduce my TV package down to just the most basic cable on 1 box (instead of HD/Movie on multiple boxes)....So now I have to call them back after their self imposed restriction expires just to give them the finger and pay their criminal fee. Side bar: I questioned the rep about Comcast offering internet only at 50mbps down for the same price, her answer was, "You won't get 50mbps down." To which I replied, "You mean kind of like how I'm paying for 18mbps down but only get 12mbps?" She promptly added an $85 credit to my account. FYI, AT&T's "internet only" packed for "18mbps" is $75!! Comcast advertises 50mbps down internet only for $40/mo. It's like trading evil for evil...there's no winning as a consumer.

I am a former AT&T Mobility employee. Even while I worked there I argued in favor of the customer (I paid a cell phone bill with them, I am a customer too..) That the throttling is complete crap. I know the profit margins on the data plans are exponential and I know that the cost of voice services is also abysmal compared to the rates. What irks me most is that "Unlimited" isn't a real thing, lets get that out of the way. If you download at 10Mbps x 24 hours a day x 31 days in a month that is as much data as you can consume. If 10Mbps was the speed you were rated on 4g/LTE/3g/ etc I see that as a measurable distance you can "travel". That number is 26784000 or roughly 3,348,000MB (3.35TeraBytes) Although this number is inconceivable amounts of data it is essentially the minimum of which you are entitled to. You have bought an all access pass to speed to consume data. If such a thing is limited, or throttled to say 1 Mbps (which happens and is a generous figure, some people get throttled to 1/100 speed), If you were to download at that new rate it would take you a month to download 350GB. It may sound like a lot, to consider only the destination value, but we have to consider the fact that we don't download 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. If you break down that 350GB it turns out to be 11.3GB/day (.47GB/hour) if you factor in the fact that you have to sleep and work you have a more realistic and finite number to work with. If you could utilize that speed for the remaining 8 hours of your day, you could expect to yield about 3.76GB of data. So by the time you hit the sheets you could have expected to have streamed one movie's worth of data on "high quality" from Netflix. At 1 Mbps in one hour of throughput you can expect to yield (if all things are consistent) ~450MB of data. Yes, in one hour of constant, uninterrupted downloading you could have finally downloaded that CD you had thought about all day at work. That speed will also yield about 7.5MB of data over a minute which is about one nice high quality song by today's standards. Streaming might be possible, but will be choppy at times and the audio quality will be lowered. Shift these again from 1/10 speed to 1/100 speed and you end up with numbers so arbitrarily low you'd think Michael Jackson was black (and alive) again. At 0.1Mbps you would be lucky to download 1GB worth of data from 24 hours of pure uninterrupted downloading. At that speed you would be lucky to download 3/4th's of ONE Megabyte in ONE minute. Good luck looking at Aunt Pattie's Facebook Photos. Streaming, Youtube, and downloading e-mail attachments is essentially impossible to do within a realistic timeframe. How much data could you "consume" in a year? 394, or about 32GB/ month. Factor in all your inconsistencies, interruptions, "life living" (sleep, work, eating, family time, etc..), and you'll soon realize that they only call it unlimited because you can't hit the theoretical cap, the destination. The argument is actually about how far you can go with your Internet. The conclusion is shockingly, not very far at all.

If you checked it out, the bot uses someone else's algorithm to narrow summaries based on chosen keywords. For one thing. For another, it does achieve more in more people reading at least some of the article. /u/auto

You're right, a company can easily tell if its advertising is being blocked and they can easily just not serve the content to the user. Why don't they just do that? I'll tell you why they just don't do that ... because then people don't get their content, which is usually the point of having a website. Many websites have made the decision to serve the content anyway, even knowing that their ads are blocked. I know of several who tried that and gave it up because people just went elsewhere.

Many websites put content out for no profit. The web existed long before the corporations came along to monetize it. And it would continue to exist if they all left. People forget that before ads and corps invaded the web, the oldheads all shared information for free, when ads and charging came around they were all perplexed and annoyed by the idea. They quite literally did it out of the goodness of their hearts and as a hobby outside of watching mindless TV.

There are a lot of elements to prove to convict them and it's hard to prove. The more they keep letting people use their network as a platform for DoS attacks, or the more important someone they piss off is, the more likely it is that someone will do the hard work to get enough evidence to arrest them; but that takes time.

To expand off of what /u/surfeasy has said, I just want to put emphasis on #3. VPN providers can see the data going through them, regardless of what kind of encryption you are using. If you value your security more than you do your anonymity, you may want to refrain from using them unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, I'd like to point out why providers such as Hola operate the way they do. While VPNs are harmless, often times the majority of their traffic is used for illegal activities. VPN Providers often realize this and will use this as justification for their actions. With that said, many reputable companies such as Chris' [SurfEasy]( will prove against this trend of selling user data. A brief background search of the service and it's founder both come up clean. [Opera]( also bought the company 12 days ago, which I would call a good form of validity.

Speaking of alternatives, does anyone know if issue also affects mobile users with the hola app? I remember using it back in 2013 to speed up YouTube (that was one of the things the app claimed it did) and all of a sudden my galaxy S3 froze. I gave it about 4 minutes but it didn't auto restart and the screen and back felt really hot to the touch so I pulled out the battery. The phone never fully booted up to android ever again but I did have access to the stock recovery mode. I tried flashing a new OS multiple times via Odin but it got stuck and never completed every time, I assume pulling the battery out corrupted the NAND memory on the phone or something so I just gave up. I mention all this because my phone was fine up until the 3 days after I installed the app hola, thats when the issues started to surface and my phone started to bug out, I just never connected the dots until after my phone bricked.

The problem with the expression is that it tends to group the mild behavior with the extreme behavior as if they were the same thing. One site tracks your clicks for money, another hooks your kids up with pedophiles for money, and both are free because "you are the product." "You are the product" is absolutely true and it's simple to understand. However, often a simple explanation can result in short-circuiting your mind from being more inquisitive. Where there should be alarm bells there is silence. Why? You already have a simple explanation for another thing which you've deemed okay. It's a full stop. If we accept Facebook because "they have to make money somehow" and "you are the product" and then something incredibly worse comes along that fits the same rule, we accept it. We accept it because we already have a bunch of things "like" it that are "just fine." (This does not reflect my personal opinion of Facebook.) Our minds take shortcuts like that all the time. We get burnt by it just often enough that we have alarm bells for "too good to be true." However, bells be damned, there are still huge blind spots between "too good" and "obviously horrible". It's not so much the expression that's bad. What's bad is our lack of understanding of the way our minds use it to pigeonhole and then short circuit further processing. What Powazek (linked above) was getting at, in his words, is "Reality is just more complicated than that." I'm sure I'll get hate for this because it's not absolute praise for something we love. To an extent, we even reward the behavior here on reddit. We're always looking to up vote that simple one-liner that fullstops further processing no matter how much reality (good or bad) is obscured by it. We're always looking for that

wtf does "

Top Gear]( episode featuring this train vs. a car and a motorcycle of the same vintage racing from London to Edinburgh. That aside, there were/are a few steam-engines operating in PA when I lived there as a kid, and they really are fascinating. I would highly recommend anybody near this so called Tornado go check it out up close and take a ride. If anybody has seen [these]( pictures before and been awed by the scale and complexities, these trains are just as cool to see in person. Although the practical side of me has to add: They've fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and I'm not sure having all your commuter lines be steam powered is such a great idea, but having them around to get people back into the spirit of trains is a great idea. Sure, walking up to a 300 MPH high speed train is neat, but you don't actually get to see how it gets up to 300MPH. You don't get to see and feel and hear all the levers and pistons and huge honkin' machinery that accelerates thousands of tons of metal and people to the same speeds most of our commuter trains travel at today. I think if more people got to ride on these trains now-a-days there'd be more appreciation for the high-speed rail-systems that do exist and more support for public rail projects in general (in the US at least, people don't seem to like trains anymore).

It's somewhat better. I like the OS better for the most part, but I like Windows better for some parts (window management for one). So why pay all that extra cash? Well, the same reason I pay more for a nicer jacket, a nicer chair, a nicer pair of pants etc. I just LOVE my 13 inch MBP. Inside it's more intuitive to work with and more sleek to look at. Outside it's just beautiful in it's unibody aluminium casing, backlit keyboard, "breathing" stand-by LED, glowing apple logo, glass buttonless touchpad etc. I thought all this was nonsense until I actually bought this computer half a year ago (needed it for FCP), but I must say - I have never been so happy and satisfied with a piece of tech as I am with the MBP!

Yes. They create problems, but they also reduce the device size and weight and allow for increased screen estate when not entering text. How you weigh the (dis)advantages is somewhat subject to preference. I like my photos and websites on a large screen in a thin device.

Most PDFs being used come off the internet though, and pdfs support a huge variety of ways to script and embed stuff in them. So even if the PDF can't upload data on its own, vulnerabilities in how various bits of them are processed open your system to other software that can. There was a website a while ago that did a nice breakdown of a forensic analysis of some suspicious PDFs to figure out what they did and how to compromise a system - the actual PDF was often just one stage in a pretty involved process of getting malicious code onto your system and finding a way to trick your browser or OS into running it when it shouldn't.

DO NOT DO THIS. At least, not with your favourite camera. I tried it with a 25mW green laser and a shitty old cameraphone a year or so ago; the direct light flash was sufficiently powerful to permanently burn out the photosites on the sensor, meaning where the beam had hit was now a permanent black squiggle across all future images that camera tried to take. The effect never wore off; I'm glad I didn't shoot-up my actual camera in this manner.

Sight...I like CNN, FOX, and any other coorporate media outlet as much (or less for that matter) as any other redditor..but.. [This is not written nor should be attributed to CNN] (

Sony refuses to fix my PS Vita, it has a screen defect and I bought it brand new from Gamestop. The screen defect is pretty common from what I've seen on the internet and yet when I talked to the representative they said this is the first time they've ever heard about it. When I asked if they can replace my defective Vita they said it's an issue with Gamestop and it's not their problem. They kept trying to change the topic by saying "If you purchase our extended warrenty you can prevent stuff like this from happening". I bought the Vita literally a week before I called Sony and it's still under the current warrenty. This is clearly a manufacturing problem and last time I checked Gamestop is only a retailer. Sony is full of douchebags that refuses to admit fault, unlike Nintendo or Microsoft. Currently the only thing I use my Vita for is watching Netflix to-go. My $300 portable Netflix machine.

Microsoft couldn't do that and if they did they'd a) piss off their other OEM partners and b) give Firefox and others even more reason for anti-trust issues. Regarding 7" tablets I'm wondering why we haven't seen any? I can only conclude that Microsoft & their partners are going for a more high end model. Notice we haven't seen any 16GB models (I'm guessing due to OS size, but that's just a guess) and I suspect the OEMs don't know how to sell a 32GB 7" tablet, it would be a bit of an odd duckling in the market. As to why they didn't do a subsidized $199 or $299 model with a monthly fee for extra services like XBox Music or Skydrive or what have you. We can probably thank ourselves. If you remember the XBox deal like that was widely criticized on the internet as stupid and silly. Presuming the XBox was just a test run of the subsidized market I think it's safe to say it wasn't very successful.

I think your argument is valid but you are lacking features iPad has a fully established app store with god knows how many apps - most I would say are high quality. Microsoft has an appstore, but it is just a baby at this point. The apps are horrible. I am writing some currently using Metro interface and the SDK seems a bit confusing as to what and how it will work on tablet(arm) devices where as on apple if you write it for iphone it works on all devices automatically. Retina display - I dont know how much this cost but I would be willing to say it adds to the price significantly. Microsoft - back to the past with 1024... iCloud, iTunes University, Siri, iMessage and Facetime are a few other key hitters. Other thought out features - Apples new over the air update, very handy. Microsoft - I dont know where they stand.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(A) requires there to be damage. There was likely none for any of us. We were not committing crimes. 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(A): >Whoever ... knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; Sometimes you can cause another person damage without doing something malicious. One of the other issues brought up here is selective enforcement. I break down selective enforcement into two categories: Regular prosecutorial discretion, and broad prosecutorial discretion due to laws being void for vagueness. The first category is the reason why if I am walking along the street with an open bottle of alcohol, a police officer may tell me to put it away, throw it out, or arrest me based on my other conduct in the situation. If I'm drunk out of my mind, the officer can chose to arrest me and get me off the street. This form of prosecutorial discretion is fine and fairly important. There really are a lot of laws, and we all break some every now and then. While some may have an issue with this form of discretion, I don't think it's something we can be too concerned about, as it isn't going away any time soon. The second category deals with statutes that are unconstitutionally vague. These 'void for vagueness' laws are so broad they reach almost everybody. Any law that allows such broad prosecutorial discretion is a bad thing, as it allows a great deal of prosecutorial discretion. For example, in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (405 U.S. 156), there was a law struck down that read: > Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses. That law could get to anybody. That law was clearly so vague and so broad that it had to be struck down, but certainly a less vague law could also work. I believe that the way the article portrays 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(A) could be considered void for vagueness. However, the fact is, most of us were not causing damage when the author says we were in violation of the statute.

This is one reason why people saying we have a rule of law are fools. The other, is that with enough lawyers you can either ruin someone's life with protracted legal battles that the lawyers are happy to fight for you, or get out of a crime you did commit.

They proceeded to write a script that harvested 120,000 emails over the course of days. They made jokes about a stock short-sale to make a profit. The IRC conversations make it pretty clear that they knew they had found a critical vulnerability, and that AT&T would not be happy and would be harmed if the knowledge became public. And who do they contact first? Gawker. AT&T learned about it from the blogs, not because they were the first contact. I'd say they were pretty irresponsible, overall. There are definitely some concerns about precedent with this case, but I'd be disappointed if they weren't punished somehow for handling it so poorly in general. Contrary to Reddit's popular belief, the law isn't black and white. Intent and how you handle things are weighed in the court room.

You bring up a very good point powernut.... If AMD went under it would be catastrophic for the desktop CPU market. AMD has always either been on Intel's coat tails or just ahead of Intel in some periods. During the highlight of AMD's performance, Intel dumped billions (no one knows the exact number but at minimum we are looking at is several billion) into unfair business practices to deny AMD revenue for competition. It is debatable whether this strategy was necessary because of AMD's manufacturing woes at the time, but the point to note here is what Intel did and how they did it. Talking about whether that strategy was needed isn't important and a sidetrack from the real issue at hand. AMD has always been there to compete with Intel and to force reasonable prices for CPU's. When you take into consideration the unfair business practices that Intel has involved its self in... it's easy to predict that with a monopoly Intel will gouge the desktop market severely. Sometimes people bring up that government fines or legislation will prevent this. The question is how? The "buy in" to join the CPU market is astonishingly high and isn't simply a matter of money. You have to also consider lost talent and cross-market pick ups.. It is not very likely anyone will fill in the gap AMD leaves. Now with Intel's reputation, what is to prevent Intel from adding any fines or legislation costs to its line up on top of the already inflated prices from no competition? As the past has shown Intel, it's relatively cheap to engage in unfair business practices. In some countries the practice was completely ignored. Intel literally got away with what the did with a slap on the wrist, while the whole time they cried innocent. A successful integration of a start up in the CPU market has hurtles to cross that are almost impossible to leap across. Outside of the enormous start up cost, you have to deal with talent that just will not be there anymore. Also there is the danger that legislation might come to the conclusion that Intel's competition is the low power market, such as ARM. Companies like VIA have effectively diversified out of the desktop CPU market. Even if they haven't they haven't been serious competition for that market for an extremely long time. [Intel antitrust]( [Intel unfair business pratices lawsuit]( [Intel anti competitive allegations](

I dug deeper and found their patent application: relevant section(s): >As indicated by block 206, exemplary method 200 involves displaying in real-time on the see-through display the visual representation of the physical interaction with the input interface. and > For example, the lens elements 110, 112 themselves may include: a transparent or semi-transparent graphic display, such as an electroluminescent display or a liquid crystal display and > Alternatively or additionally , a scanning laser device, such as low-power laser or LED source and accompanying scanning system, can draw a raster display directly onto the retina of one or more of the wearer's eyes. The wearer can then perceive the raster display based on the light reaching the wearer's retina.

i posted this elsewhere in the thread, but a harvard professor and a yale professor did a study on it. pdf here:

Also from 8 months ago ([quoting myself]( > [oinkery's comment]( "

Take this for what it's worth, but yelp's filters try to take out what they call 101s and 501s. People who register, do 1 review (either 5 stars or 1 star), have no friends on the site, and never come back again. Generally speaking, the bullshit reviews done by competitors or friends of owners fall into those categories get caught in their filter. That being said, take everything on there with a grain of salt. I know the community manager in my city and a lot of people who use the site, so I use their reviews of restaurants and shops because I know them. When you get into situations where businesses have very few reviews or you don't have a network of people on the site you understand, you can get mixed results.

I understand a small business owner's frustration with being bombarded by calls to advertise on Yelp, and maybe not getting what they thought Yelp could deliver. But bottom line, as a consumer I have been using Yelp for three years, and have written over a hundred reviews with ratings from 1 star to 5 stars. None of my reviews have been filtered, no one has contacted me regarding writing fake reviews, and I know what to look for in a review to determine its usefulness. I have never been surprised by a business when I checked out the Yelp review ahead of time - I know the best times to go, where to sit, who to ask for, etc etc. These are all things that enhance my experience. If a review is just a couple lines saying "This place sucks, DO NOT COME HERE"... it's not influencing me one bit. It's the detailed reviews with useful information that grab my attention.

I used to work in the sales department at a leading Online Reputation Management company. We essentially cleaned up Google search results for small/medium businesses that have been victim to slander and reputation attacks. Anyways, I got tons of calls from small businesses, doctors, and private contractors that would get screwed by the Yelp filtering. I remember one client was a doctor - super nice guy - who had ~20 yelp reviews, most of them 4-5 star (with a few 2-3 stars in there). One friday afternoon he gets a call from Yelp's sales team asking him if he'd like to promote his practice on Yelp to the tune of almost $1000/month. Naturally, he declined. The next day ~7 of his 4-5 star reviews were mysteriously filtered out. By Monday morning all but one of his 5 star reviews was gone, and his average rating had dropped from 4 stars to 2.5 stars. When he called Yelp up, they said that 'they had noticed some unusual activity with some of his reviews, and as such had filtered them out of the main results.' They then offered to increase the visibility of his 4-5 star reviews if he were to start advertising with them.

Yelp actually has an explanation page of how their filtering system works. Take a look and read it . Considering how easy it is for an anonymous person to write anything they want, I'm okay with this. Also, most people don't know this, but after the user exists for a while, and posts other reviews, their credibility rises, and reviews they created in the past that may have been filtered will rise and become unfiltered. The pressure they put on small business owners to advertise with them is very real though. They really hustle you.

Yup. I look at the context of the reviews more than the star rating. I'm a vegetarian who likes really good coffee so it's hard to find healthy vegetarian food when I'm traveling. Unless 20+ negative reviews complain of the same problem, that also happens to be a problem for me (I don't care about slow service and I've found when people complain about rude service it's usually because the reviewer is a dick). I find really amazing places on Yelp and I don't find them by only looking at star ratings. I eat at about 100 different restaurants each year in 20-30 different cities. I can't think of a time I would give a restaurant less than a 3 star review so I categorically ignore every 1 and 2 star review. Again, I search keywords more than star reviews. So to answer your question, I do go to businesses with less than 2 stars from time to time, but I find the negative reviews are usually worthless but the positive reviews are spot on.

Sounds interesting but all I get is: "Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune."

Except you're completely wrong. It's not a true democracy. The officials put up for election have already been weeded out through gerrymandering and sly political tactics. When it comes down to actual voting, you're left with the choice between idiot #1 vs idiot #2. Neither of which have barely a sliver of the same views you do... or they say they do but then do the exact opposite. In a simple counter-argument, if 151 million people vote on some asshole that gets people killed, are the 150 million who voted against him responsible? Most people (note: ~83% since congress has something like a 17% approval rating) absolutely detest the government and only participate out of false hope that they can fix it; or like most of the college kids who do vote, pressure and ignorance mixed with emotion incited by the media. What if you have to hire someone at a job and there are two applicants. You pick the one you feel is most qualified. Then the one goes off and murder 5 people in another building. Are you responsible? Is your secretary responsible for their actions because she's in the same office as you? Is the recruiting website that brought them to your business responsible? How far back does it go? That's pretty much the argument you're stating by making that blanket statement. PS. We don't vote in members of the FBI, stupid. The government in the US is far from under control by our citizens.

To add onto this. The general population doesn't hold the opinion that we are the best country in the world anymore. Our mass media and cultural exports drive this thought outward to the world, not us. Most Americans know we are in a shitty spot, we let the baby boomers really grind our political system to a halt and its going to take some time to fix things. Slowly old people are being replaced by younger more aware leaders, we see changes already at the state level where most US Senators and Reps get their start.

Fucken hell. I'm a kiwi and even I think all this voter responsibility crap is rough. Only because I know it wouldn't matter one pinch of shit who was in power when all this happened. It would have happened the same way. It's the nature of power whoever they vote for. And hey, America has power in more ways than one. What about OUR voters in NZ who elected a government who would not only allow this, but assist this? Like, to the point of breaking the laws they wrote themselves? To me it says more about NZ than the US. Yeah Na. It's just Murica's fault.

Well, you asked for my feelings and I delivered. As for more objective reasons I dislike pro-sports [I'm not hating on college sports BTW, at least those cats are in school.] I object to my taxes being used to construct an entertainment venue I'll likely never need. Now, I don't mind my taxes paying for things I hope I never need, like welfare or food stamps or medicaid. Those things serve a greater good. Entertainment venues are cool and fun, but I think they should be 100% privately funded or use voluntary donations. Game day traffic is a pain in the ass anywhere within 2 miles of an arena. [especially sucks if you happen to work six blocks from, say, Dolphin's Stadium in Miami]. The myth that a kid with enough heart and drive can make it big in pro sports, IMO, does more harm than good. The reality is that for every one that makes it, how many fail and are left with little or nothing to fall back on? See it: Kid has a dream, he wants to play pro football someday. So he goes out for the team in high school and he makes the cut. Now he has to bust his ass for the next 4 years to even have a shot at college ball, plus somehow maintain academic standing just to stay on the team. Assuming he goes four years, preforms well and avoids injury he now has a shot at college. [and if he went to my HS, it didn't matter how good an individual player he was, we were the losingest team in the state. Literally. We broke a 61 game losing streak at homecomeing my freshman year.] Now he's playing with the big kids. The training is harder, the hits are harder, and the class work is harder [plus, if he didn't get a full ride, his family now has to figure out how to pay the difference]. Assuming he makes it 4 years, [again, preforming well and avoiding injury], now there's a chance he might get picked in the draft. Let's pause a moment here and take a look at those chances... Now, I don't know the exact numbers, but there are quite a few more college football teams than pro. It's also a fact that not every player eligible for the draft actually gets drafted. Now I'll be generous, let's say that 25% of HS football players go on to play for a college team, and a further 15% of those college players go pro...how many kids didn't make it. And what now will they do? I could go on, but this is already a GWOT, and no

Doesn't mean computers are banned, just means you'd have to keep them off the internet. This would likely be replaced by one or a series of intranets.

That was concise. Saves a few hours of internet leg work.

This meme gets copied and pasted every time this topic comes up, And so does your response. And the retort is always links to a plethora of articles disproving your theory. Such as below The problem is these companies want to invest ZERO dollars in bringing an engineer up to speed or investing in the last mile of expertise. They are only interested in somebody with either A) Several years experience B) Low wage requirement You can't get A without a job in the first place and Americans can't compete with B. Every modern country out there subsidizes college education to some degree, most to 80-100%. Some degree dependent, some not. The U.S. does none of those things. This is compounded with computer based STEM careers as they require constant education which means an ever increasing education bill. An American STEM graduate has 80-120k worth of student debt they have to deal with. You can't compete with an Eastern European block country or India that subsidized education. If you remember the dotcom bust and the musical jobs that programmers had to deal with and then suddenly finding themselves with NO jobs and no prospects after the bust. Programming doesn't have a great reputation as a stable profession. Because of the above and the fact Americans are left unassisted to a brutal employment market they gravitate to professions that have stability. Also consider the amount of intellect/skill required to be in the top 5% If I could become the top 5% of programmers I could become the top 5% of hedge fund managers and make 20x the money. This is actually why there is a shortage in the first place. I'd like to go back to the topic of education, because of the cost of a degree nobody wants to take a risk. If I saddle myself with 120k in debt to become a programmer only to hit the market and find out I'm of middling skill I now have a huge debt burden on a not very high paycheck. However if I start a business my take home could easily outstrip a middle of the road software engineer. And you don't need ANY education to start a business.

Certainly. Detecting that a given computer is participating in the Tor network (not counting things like bridge nodes) is not a particularly difficult thing to do for the ISP. However, because each communication link in the graph is encrypted (and the internal processing of each node is opaque to them), it is not generally possible for them to look at a node receiving a message to work backwards to figure out which node it originated from, which is the information that Tor is intended to obscure. There are some known attacks on the Tor network that can betray some of that data: timing attacks, if you can view all of the network activity, can tell you something about who's talking to who within the network. The good news, Tor has some built-in functionality to help to compensate for these sorts of attacks. The bad news is, they're probably not good enough to solve the problem entirely. The good news is that it's not just all one ISP - Tor is a global network across a number of infrastructure backbones. In order to do an optimal attack of this kind, you'd need to have an awful lot of people working together.

Look, to be honnest, it's not fun anymore. I opened an account 5 years ago. At first I liked it, I found a lot of Mikes and Marias out there. But it turned out all the contacts I got were "Hey, so how are you?" " Oh well, I'm fine I guess. Married, X kids, this job, that house, blah blah. You?" "Oh well, pretty much the same!". When you think of it, it's kind of ridiculous. In the end I only got messages from people I had other ways to reach; the other ones I did not care that much about them. So, what was the point really? Now, I'm not saying it's the case for a lot of people. Maybe you found people with which you really want to keep in touch. My advice: if that person seems happy to have found you too, get a way to contact them outside of FB. If you don't care that much about seeing that person again, just let it go. What's the point? I's like having all those addresses in a physical address book, and only using it once a year to send Christmas cards (Yes, I'm old enough to have suffered the annual "Kids, come sign the 24578 cards! Then you'll go post them regardless of the blizzard out there!" - I stubbornly refuse to do that to my own kids!)... "How are you?" "Oh well, this and that, new kid, blah blah" - if you ever get a reply. Then after a few weeks, you throw the card away. What's the point really? The only reason I would have kept it was if those people had really something important to show or tell and they only did it on FB. John is a great carpenter, he puts pictures of his craft on FB only. Well ok, I might keep an FB account to check it out, but only if I somehow have no way of seeing him physically . Otherwise, that's just more occasions to visit him. Turns out, none of my "physically unreachable" contact has something worth showing on FB. The few that had something to show, I did not really give a damn (Oh, Wendy does necklaces from recycled garbage now? Oh that's so .. uuhh... unintersting!"). Again, I'm not saying I'm the typical FB user - I most certainly ain't. John putting up delibaretely vague status ("so low again...") just so that people ask him what's going on, pretending to panic because their "friend" seems in distress, and then seeing that asshole John won't even bother answering; seeing aunt Jenny posting that stupid fucking joke picture you already saw a billion times; seeing cousin Edward posting one of those oh-so-insightful text pictures with stuff as deep as "don't talk about me if you don't really know me!!!1"); Uncle Bob's racist diatribe ("Look, I'm not a racist, but those arab people should all be locked up LOL!!1!! (it's ok cause I said lol, LOL1!!1)")... Seriously? As I said, I filtered a lot, so much it became ridiculous. Cousin Edward, aunt Jenny and John up there, and fucking uncle Bob, I did not "unfriend" them for political correctness, but they sure did not appear in my "feed" anymore. Then, all thos pages I liked (the Californication official page! The Trainspotting offical page! etc.), turned out into advertising or plain stupid barfing machines ("click here to find out who is a huge fan of the showww!!!11!"). The only ones that really matter, I can follow them in a myriad of other ways. In the end, I ended up using so much time filtering stuff... And don't get me started on the notifications "Jeremy is inviting you to play 'Uselee Piece of Junk Game #34453!". Man I filtered so much of that crap. So it came down to: spending way too much time filtering out useless shit, making sure my privacy settings were ok, scrolling through 13 pages of junk, filter some more out. That's the top of the hill when it comes to wasting my time. What the fuck do I care anymore? Now the other way around: I did not have a lot of contacts on FB (a mere 215 at peak - also note I don't use the FB terminology of 'Friend', because a friend is something really special to me, but I digress). I happen to have a hobby: photography. I do a decent shot now and then, and, as you guessed, I posted those woderful pictures out there. Some people actually liked them. Out of my 215 contacts, I got likes and comments from what, 25 of them tops? Also turns out, most of those 25, if not all, were people I can see physically at least say once a year. So if they want to see my pictures, I'd prefer to invite them home, share a good meal, and if they really want to see the pictures, show them. Again, maybe it's because I'm a boring person, and anyone else would have 1000 "friends" and 800 likes every time they fart. So be it, I prefer my life, seriously. All I'm saying, is that for some reason, I kept this for 5 years for pretty much no reason, making some sort of lame excuses (let's keep in touch! Let's show the world all the stuff I like! Let's share YouTube videos of the music I like! Insightful environmental articles! National Geographic pictures and videos!) to not deactivate it. I finally got my head out of my ass, deactivated the thing, and have not once wanted to go back and see what's up, because truth be told, I don't give a shit. Declutter, man, that's all I'm about right now. As I already said, if it's useless, dump it. If it makes me feel even slightly dumber, toss it. I have so many more great things to do out there, in the real life. Updating a status no one will read, or only people I don't care that much about will respond to, is definitely not a way of living. Today I feel liberated, and retarded for having kept this up for so long. What a waste of my time, and I'm the only one to blame. And then all those privacy stuff. Seriously, they follow you on pretty much every link you ever click. That's just not right. Google+ is on the same slippery slope; so I deleted that shit too. I also had a Twitter account. I think I tweeted once. Then I got tired of email notifications ("Jesus H Christ retweeted an absolutley shitty article from buzzfeed!!!!!"). I disabled all nofitifcations. In the 3+ years I had that account, I probably logged in 7 times (leading to 7 password reset procedures of course). That's the very definition of clutter => to the dumpster. Well shit it's late now. I hope I could help a few people getting their own heads out of their bums. If not, sorry for the long read.

Do you really want to keep doing that? It probably does way more harm than good. I mean, if you stalk pictures, it's probably of someone you lust for. It might make you think that having that person in your FB friends is step 1 of your big masterplan to seduce him/her. Let me tell you this: it wil not happen. If you're serious about that, there's something called "real life", where it has more chances of working, for real. It will play like this: Shit (s)he's in a relationship! Better wait until (s)he's ot of it then! (lame excuse No 1) Oh shit shit shit shit shit! (s)he finnally dumped Mike/Nancy!!! Heart-break time, I should definitely jump on it and contact him/her! Mwahaha master-plan and all! PM: "Hi Deb/Josh! I see you're single, that's so unfortunate!! I know the feeling, I'm single myself wink wink . No I know you probably don't know who I am/we've never met/We haven't seen each other in like 10 years but we should try something LOL" Reply: "Who the fuck are you, pervert stalker??"/"Yeah, no thanks"/"Yeah, most def!". 3 weeks later, and the conversation, and your pathetic attempts to get it going, will fail miserably. Seriously, that's yet another lame excuse. If all you want is to see pictures of nice babes/dudes, porn is the answer. It's what it's meant for. Lusting for unreachable people will only make you feel miserable. If you're really into him/her, grow some balls (or whatever female equivalent there is), ask nicely to meet them, and get it on in real life. At least you'll quickly be able to see what that person is really like, because a FB status and picture don't reveal much, and with people you don't know, it's pure deception 90% of the time. How many stories are there out there of "I met him on FB, he seemed quite the gentleman until I met him after 2 years of secret PM"? or "She seemed so nice and balanced, but it turns out she's a money-thirsty whore"? If you stalk on someone you know in real life and that person is free and you want a go at it, why stalk on her/his FB pictures, (s)he's RIGHT THERE, damnit! I don't see how "I stalk peoples pictures and realtionship statuses" can be a valid argument.

I work in a networking lab with a lot of techies. We're all pretty addicted to our tablets, laptops, cellphones, etc. I was surprised to see that very few people I talked to know about this. The short of it is that you can easily do stuff like tethering for free using any number of free apps out there instead of paying your service provider extra. This was huge for me because I recently bought a Nexus 7 without LTE, but since I can tether my phone (for free) I get mobile networking on it.

That would only be possible with heavy DRM, which I'm all for as long as it doesn't punish legitimate users. Netflix does have a very good selection of TV shows. I wish Netflix had recent episodes, even if it was ad supported. Hopefully, Microsoft will be able to push this with the Xbox One.

yeah, but even that 50% increase is great for artists.. the music industry has been shifting for some time now anyway.. to a model where more of their revenue comes from merchandise and gigs. I don't think Piracy will ever die, if you make the penalties too high then there will just be an outcry about how unfair it is in comparison with other similar crimes, but without that there is not enough incentive for people not to download. I think forcing people to pay double the price of whatever they download is a reasonable middle-ground, but even then you will find the circumstances where someone downloaded music and then went and bought merch/gig tickets to see that band after discovering their music for free.

I'm saying he was operating in a legal system but the system broke protocol to take him down.

You know... You don't just host the biggest streaming and downloading site on the internet and not notice the cirminal activity going on. Don't act surprised like this. Don't pretend every single other video or content site isn't keenly aware of the illegal stuff going on on their site. Reddit banned subreddits because of child porn remember? At one point they chose that a line was crossed. Many other site may not decide this way this fast. You know... Ad revenue and stuff. The point is not whether it was illegal or willfully illegal that's not what the case is about. The pirate bay operates illegally too as a facilitator of copyright infringement. So what. That's not exactly my problem. I don't pirate I don't own copyrights that I care about. What I care about is injustice in a systemic manner. Like raiding someone's home with an illegal warrant. The fact remains that the two parties decided to not play ball with each other and the US "content" industry decided to play dirty to get what they think is due to them. I don't like that. For all it's worth I would have no problem Kim dotcom getting ordered to court and getting fined for 95% of his money because of illegal gains and nice orderly manner. But when things got this dirty my sense of justice clearly weighed in in his favor.

Yep, 'sloppy'..your armchair-insight is certainly more wise than some of earth's brightest scientists and engineers who are responsible for the cable's design and deployment. Will you please lead us?

Weren't those early ISPs ad-supported though? I believe some of AOL's channels were officially sponsored by or piggybacked off of another website. There were also a few companies who offered cheap or free Internet access, sometimes even free computers, in exchange for reserving a portion of your screen space for ads. Then there's the question of caps. In 1998, AOL disks came with ten hours of access included. Ten whole hours of text-based browsing. My current Internet package comes with 150GB of data per month.

May be a bit late, but: I think you are looking at those numbers incorrectly. Assuming Google should charge $10k/mo, it would seem appropriate for @Home to have charged $3600/mo for their 3Mbps service. Based on the numbers OP gave, @Home charged $30/mo (roughly adjusted for inflation)for their 3Mbps service when it cost them $1200/Mbps to provide this service. Today it costs $1/Mbps (rounded for simplicity). 1200x less. If we assume they offer the same 3Mbps and want to maintain the same profit percentage, we can divide the $30/mo fee by 1200 to account for the lower overhead cost. That would come out to $0.025/mo. The cost to Google to get the same percentage profit, we have to multiply $0.025 by ~340 to account for the differences in speed. It comes out that Google would make the same profit as @Home by charging $8.50/mo (not including infrastructure, etc. etc.).

Thank you to /u/Irrepressible87 for the reminder...I promised to talk about how traditional publishing works but didn't have time last night. Disclaimer: My information on the traditional distribution system comes from my stint as the manager of an independent bookstore from 1996 to 2000 and from further information from research I've done over how the process has changed. It is not complete. My information on the publishing end comes from a lot of research and from talking with friends and acquaintances of mine who are published (both through traditional publishers and through self-publishing). So the publisher sends out an announcement to the distributors (basically just Amazon and Ingram at this point I believe). "These are the books we're releasing on these dates ready for advance orders." Amazon will post their pre-order link on the website and Ingram will send out a catalog to retailers (though I believe they've moved to fully online ordering at this point). Retailers will go through and pre-order the books for two to three months from now. So I (bookstore manager) have to decide at least two months in advance what books I think will sell in my store and how many they'll sell. This includes genres I don't read. I have to go by the abstracts, the author's previous performance, and any early reviews (rare that advance of publishing) or word-of-mouth. It's a very difficult thing to predict, even back in the pre-social media days (if Oprah even thought the name of a book, you'd better have a couple dozen on the shelves). So I place my order with the distributor who in most cases has already placed their order with the publisher. The publisher delivers the books directly from the printer to the distributor's warehouse, who then ships the books to me. I put them out on my shelves and wait 90 days. If the book hasn't sold in 90 days, I have the option of returning it. To return in, in the case of paperbacks, I go and cull the shelves, then sit there for an hour ripping the front covers off books and bagging up the rest to be sent to the recycling center (at least I hope that's what bookstores are doing these days...we didn't have recycling back when I was running the store). Where does Amazon fit into this? They're both the distributor and the retail outlet all at once. This gives them an insane advantage because of the markdowns. Here's how pricing works. The distributor buys the book from the publisher for between 30-40% of the cover price. The retail store then buys from the distributor for between 45-60% of cover price. We then sell at full cover price or whatever discount we can afford and still pay employees and the power bill. When it gets closer to that 90 day mark, that's when you'll get big markdowns especially on hardbacks. We pay for shipping on returns. Paperbacks aren't a big deal because we're just sending back the cover. Hardbacks, though, we return the entire book. It sucks because you're calculating how much you're losing keeping it on the shelf hoping it sells vs. the shipping to send it back. Especially once the paperback's announced. It's why you see hardbacks showing up for $4.99-$6.99 in chain stores - it's literally cheaper to sell the books for a loss than it is to ship them back for a refund. Okay, going off on a tangent now. That 60% discount that Amazon gets means they can sell the books for 40% off and still make money in volume, basically sales they stole from me. Protip: If you walk into a bookstore, ask me about a book you can't remember ("Oh, that one they made a movie out of a few years ago that starred that guy?") and then say, "Thanks! I'm buying it on Amazon now!", I am fantasizing about your slow and painful death and badgers made up of fireants and spiders are involved. So that covers physical books...what about ebooks? Those weren't around when I worked for the bookstore, but I am a member of Kindle Direct Publishing (I'm gonna finish that novel any day now!) and have read their terms. [You have two options for royalties]( You can either go for the more standard 35% cut of retail sales, or you can get 70%, which is double if my math works out correctly. Ah, but there's a catch. Just like with the retail model, the publisher gets 35% of the retail cover price of the book. You may have noticed this is the same deal for the publisher as a retail book, give or take. Publisher provides a book at a set price, gets 35% of whatever's sold at cover price. The 70% rate is based on whatever price Amazon charges for the book, regardless of cover price. That means if they decide to discount your book, you're paid on the discounted rate. Oh, and you're responsible for paying a delivery fee of $0.15 per MB of your book (rounded to the nearest KB), even if Amazon has the book on promotion. Funny side note: If your book is under 10MB in Japan, you're charged delivery fees but if it's equal to or greater than 10MB, you're not charged. So they'll charge you for a small file but not a large one? So what does this mean exactly? Traditional publishers will almost always go for the 35% rate because it's a non-variable income. They see they've sold 1000 copies that month at $7.99, they know they're getting $2796.50 when Amazon cuts them a check. They sell the same thing for a book under the other system, who knows what royalties they might get? Note, I did say royalties . This is a big difference between a physical copy, which is a purchase . Amazon bought those books and Amazon owns them unless they decide to return them after 90 days. What Amazon is doing right now is sitting on a large chunk of books from a single publisher, demanding they move to the 70% model where Amazon charges per delivery of the book and can set their own price on ebooks, paying royalties off that. Those books sitting in a warehouse whose delivery time is "1-2 months" are still subject to the 90 day return policy. People who have bought the books elsewhere sure aren't going to buy them from Amazon. So this is what Amazon is doing. "Switch to the other system for ebooks that is heavily advantageous for us, or we're going to sit on this big stack of books we bought from you until no one wants them, then return them all to you for a full refund as unsold stock." For those familiar with the gaming industry, this move happening to TSR is what bankrupted the company. Doubt it would happen to a publisher this large, but it will be a huge financial blow. So there you go. If you have any questions, ask away. If you have any more current information or would like to correct anything I got wrong, please do so. As I said in my original post (which I mostly deleted to post this long rambling thing), I want people to make informed opinions even if they still end up disagreeing with me. You can't form a strong opinion from a place of ignorance or else you become dogmatic, which stifles discussion and leads to internet shouting matches. I'd rather you disagree with me but know the subject than agree with me and remain uninformed.

I appreciate that. But let me share my perspective as someone who probably doesn't stand exactly where you do: I don't own guns. I don't like guns. And a sober, rational analysis of who I am and where I live would probably indicate that, even with appropriate safeguards taken into consideration, a gun in my home is more likely to be involved in the harm of my loved ones than in their protection. But my life is not yours. I do believe that you put yourself in some danger by having guns in your home, and that this danger may (but doesn't necessarily) outweigh your likelihood of defending yourself with a gun. However, we can't outlaw everything people enjoy having access to just because there's risk involved — if that were the case, we'd have to go around the country and fill in LOTS of swimming pools. And let's not forget that there are wilderness areas of this country where firearms are essential for self-defense. That said, there is a point where a prohibition is called for: when the burden or potential danger to society at large outweighs our doing whatever the hell we want. This is why you and I can't have tactical nukes, vials of ricin, or (more on the "burden" side of things) unlimited access to narcotics. I have yet to be convinced that the danger posed by the currently-legal array of firearms merits such a prohibition, and that sports car analogy is suggestive of the reason why: people are not engaging guns on a rational level, and if we were talking about almost any other sort of device, there would be far less fuss. One last bit: while I am comfortable with the status quo, I do see the potential for an unreasonable burden on society. There are a lot of deeply, deeply stupid people out there, and given some of the moronic altercations I've seen between people, I fear where things might go if more idiots having arguments were idiots with concealed firearms having argument. To torture the analogy, I'd also be concerned if every idiot driver out there were issued a Maserati — certainly everybody's entitled to own one, but I think it reasonable to feel less safe if everybody actually did. I feel the same way about guns, and guns are a lot cheaper and more accessible that Maseratis. That fear in mind, we're still quite far from that point, and the slope doesn't seem slippery enough to merit a significant gun prohibition.

So I just read your comment history for a while and boy is it fascinating. Firstly in this comment you write "for those of us who are black" to imply you're black and give your comment some perceived, albeit incorrectly, added weight because of your alleged skin color. However, in a comment in your history you wrote about how you were a white boy from a small town who had to read a book about Malcolm X. At first I was like "wow this douche nozzle is lying" but then I realised oh wait it is more insidious than that. He didn't explicitly SAY he was black he just implied it as heavily as he could while still leaving a back door for him to slip out if he got busted. He's a coward, a liar, and an idiot! This should be interesting. But wait! there is more stuff that doesn't seem to add up. You also claim you're in the military, that you have a background in counciling addicts, and also have a background in phlebotomy. Oh and also I couldn't help but notice your ability to talk down to people on economic issues because "they haven't taken university level courses in economics." Now as someone who is currently going to university (and will hopefully get their doctorate in psychology some day way in the future) to work with youths in addiction. I can confidently state the work load required to get to a point where you actively council people is quite large. Now if I didn't know better I would say there is a good chance you're completely full of shit. That or you really are a black, ex-military, addiction councilor who in his spare time is also a phlebotomist, who just happens to have a strong university level background in economics. Oh! I also can't forget that this amazing individual also just happens to say "brosef" a fair bit. A word, which unless I'm mistaken, is generally a phrase used by younger individuals. But before you write your tired, predictable response of "Ya dude I never said I was black, and I never actually said I was a phlebotomist, and I never specifically said I was employed as an addiction councilor" or whatever tired attempt at backpedaling your brain is currently furiously attempting to create, I would just like to compliment you on being the worst of what reddit is. A condescending , self aggrandising, arrogant prick and a liar to boot. I assure you I am all these same things too, it is just that I am self aware enough to be cognisant of this fact. So in summation: the next time you feel the need to spout your first year university, just read Ayn Rand, poli-sci 101, faux libertarian condescension, do me a favour. Fuck off.

I posted this comment in another sub and don't feel like typing another paraphrased version for this thread. >Or the NSA obtained a copy of Regin in the wild and RE'd it. >Why build malware from the ground up when you can obtain copies from a hundred different intelligence sources? Virustotal, honeypots, etc. It's already been beta tested thousands, or even millions of times, by black hats altering it over time to avoid detection. Most of your QA is done. Thousands of man hours that the NSA employees or contractors would charge the agency developing malware from the ground up have been saved. The NSA is still a government agency and budgets still matter. >I'm not defending the NSA here, but claiming that Regin is an NSA tool is kind of misleading. More than likely, the NSA got their hands on a copy and used it for their own devices. Remember the golden rule, programmers are lazy as fuck.

Don't get too excited. The telecoms have court challenges ready tonfile before Wheeler completes the sentence saying Tittle 2 will be used. Once in the courts, they will drive.it up to the SCOTUS, so that Roberts & his four horseman can hand down a.5-4 majority once again sellong the people out to the corporate. Meanwhile the GOP will be attaching legislation to achieve the same and limely attaching it to bills funding veterans or similarly sensitive programs, to ensure the POTUS and Dems can be vilified for blocking or vetoing it.

See the [European model]( for an example of how it would work. Basically, the lines from your home to the local exchange can be used by any ISP - the ISP pays a rent to the 'owner' of that part of the connection. From the exchange, they can either rent out network capacity from the incumbent operator, or run their own capacity to the exchange and pay out a small amount for maintenance of the exchange itself. Finally, the incumbent (BT at the time) was split into two divisions, one responsible solely for the infrastructure, the other as the normal ISP. Ofcom - our equivalent to the FCC - put in rules that forces the infrastructure division to charge the same rates to everybody, including the ISP division. That denies the incumbent a competitive advantage. The infrastructure still gets upgraded due to competition - because of the ability to run new cables to the exchanges, two other telecommunications companies (bSkyb and Virgin Media) began building out their own infrastructure, so BT's infrastructure division has to keep upgrading to remain competitive with their offerings. Virgin Media is a Cable company, bSkyb is a mixture of Fibre and Copper, and BT is the same as bSkyb. I'm not sure if BT still has the rates it's allowed to charge for access regulated or not given the competing infrastructure that exists now, but either way there's a lot of choice. In my town area (pop 100,000 including nearby villages) there's a choice of ~12 residential ISPs, with the cheapest being 16Mbps for £17/mo (Fuel), the most expensive being 78Mbps for ~£32/mo (DS Telecom).

According to the Internet, a landline phone call of 1 minute is about 150KB, or 0.00014 of a gigabyte. Landlines charge monthly because they are moving so little data; if they charged per amount of data they would make much less. You probably don't use a whole gigabyte of landline phone data in a month. Compare this to the Internet, where bandwidth is a finite resource because people can download many, many gigabytes in a day. Since companies won't be able to throttle your speeds for using an absurd amount of bandwidth, charging per GB becomes a simple, profitable way of solving that problem. Data is not a resource to be renewed, but bandwidth is and so it must be conserved Edit:

I didn't submit them. Edit: All I'm saying is that reddit is blowing its collective load (front page, over 1,400 upvotes) all over a story addressing points that other redditors had brought up months before this article was submitted during the height of the Toyota witch hunt. I don't have butt hurt because the two articles I provided as evidence didn't get upvotes, it's because of the hypocrisy of reddit disregarding evidence months ago and then collectively deciding months later that, turns out, the majority of complaints were not Toyotas fault.

Oh good, the cup and ball game... You realise the IV wasn't 40-bit thus the problem? Also the bit length of WEP was highly unrelated to its strength (since what we're using currently is the SAME length as WEP (128-bit)). All the BIG problems that "broke" WEP were entirely down to the flawed way the protocol was designed. While the early 40-bit length might have become a problem recently, since 128-bit WEP is highly common, we would likely still be using WEP had the protocol been implmeented correctly (see WPA-PSK, which is WEP "fixed").

GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL. GO TO HELL.

Fukushima reactor one blew up! The outer wall is gone. More radiation is being released in one hour than one year's normal operation. That is a factor of 8750 (365*24). And that is based on measurements of uncertain reliability. A factor of ten error is possible. So this is a gigantic release of radiation, around four orders of magnitude higher than normal. And it could get worse.

I know that. I think it is an stupid term. Are you not understanding this? BTW you did a LMGTFY above so I clicked the first hit is for [Urban Dictionary.](

This is an interesting but pointless argument by people who obviously gauge "intelligence" as something that is impractical. For a machine be more "intelligent" than a human is a silly concept, because the vast majority of what we consider "intelligence" is simply human culture and experiences dealing with other human beings. Whats "intelligent" changes a great deal based on who you ask in the vast majority of topics. He's essentially saying we can build a better human, and then humans will be screwed. What these guys don't realize, is that intelligence in the way a computer is intelligent is a very small factor in what makes people successful.

How about almost every single person in this entire thread that claims to be from the US, combined with every single person I've ever talked to, even through college. Does that back it up? No? Well let's continue then... There is no distinction like what you are suggesting. In fact, US World News and Reports most likely makes the distinction between schools using those terms as simply a mere classification attempt for their own purposes . They do NOT define the lexicon and vernacular for the US. Here's an example: Ohio University, the school I went to, offers liberal arts degrees! But then why are they called University?! I'll tell you why... because they liked the name, that's why. Let's go over to wikipedia and look up ["liberal arts college"]( And we find: >Liberal arts colleges are found in all parts of the world. Examples of such colleges are Bishop's University in Canada, Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, John Cabot University in Rome, Italy, European College of Liberal Arts in Germany, University College Utrecht in the Netherlands, Foundation for Liberal and Management Education in Pune, India and Campion College in Sydney, Australia We've got "universities" and "colleges" listed there... but they're all "liberal arts"... Thus we can conclude, what you have been "taught", I'm sorry to say... is a completely false distinction. College does not all the sudden mean a liberal arts school, nor does University all the sudden mean not a liberal arts school. I mean shit... what would US World News and Reports have to say about University College Utrecht? It has both words in it's name!

Sweet you know my name! You can do a whole lot with that! You're right! It is pretty nice to have a Communications degree from The [Scripps College of Communication]( >The E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, widely considered one of the best journalism schools in the country, is part of the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University. It is quite the challenge... because it's not just any old communications degree. It's actually highly competitive and selective. For contrast, an engineering degree is supposed to be super hard and can get you far huh? Yea I guess that's why the Russ College of Engineering at OU only requires a 2.0... and most of my friends with engineering degrees there are struggling to find jobs that pay well at all.. Weird how stereotyping degrees doesn't seem to make much sense does it? And hey look! You really can go far with a communications degree! Been working there for a year (paid)... New York City has been a blast... but I'm going to really enjoy my move to LA come January where I have some fantastic opportunities lined up for me. So where was it that you graduated from again... and how awesome is your job?