Note the following passage: When you asked for more, the Chinese scientists would go off, and a couple of days later, they've done the analysis, and we've got new information. It was extremely useful.

The Chinese WOULD NOT provide the raw data for others to analyze, they kept it to themselves. This was noted in the earlier NYT article that was critical of China.

The question then becomes: who gets to determine what is "true"? If this were Galileo's time, would you put the Roman Catholic Church in charge of deciding whether Galileo's postings about astronomy were accurate? When a scientist had the preposterous idea that ulcers could be caused by bacteria and not stomach acid, should the American Medical Association and its many members who attacked his since-proven theory have been the ones who said whether he can publish?

When we went through the Great Purge of conservatives from social media post-election, I thought to myself that these companies had a death wish. The Democrats already hated them just for being big, rich, and powerful, and now the Republicans would too. When the flying monkeys descend to break them up, obsolete their business models, and tightly regulate them, they'll have no defenders to oppose any of it. In fact, I'd expect the pillaging to be bipartisan.

... the demise of net neutrality resulted in exactly NOTHING. The internet is still here, we're not being charged extra to access the services we want, and the world didn't collapse. Remember this when apolcalypse-mongers start screeching about the next Horrible Thing That Must Not Be Countenanced that's going to happen.

Seems like if you offered to split the Bitcoin 50-50 that $100 million would be enough incentive to bring forth an army of hackers who'd put the Ironkey security to the most intense scrutiny possible. You'd of course require that they first demonstrate their prowess on a device that isn't the one holding the precious Bitcoin private keys. Best of all, it would cost you nothing.

I notice that TFA doesn't mention the left-wing versions such as the great "Trump colluded with Russia" conspiracy theory. The deludoids STILL haven't let that go. Not to mention classics like George H. W. Bush secretly flew in a SR-71 spy plane to Paris to collude with Iran to delay the release of hostages in order to damage President Carter's reelection bid.

But only a "limited" number. In other words, infinite numbers of GoDaddy employees did not fall for it.

As far as I can see, nobody advocates what I consider the best option: work to get the DMCA modified so that bringing a complaint that is later adjudged spurious triggers penalties payable to the party whose content was taken down or otherwise censored. Right now, there's no real downside to filing meritless complaints, and the potential upside that the content you don't want people to see gets booted.

For maximal "fairness", universities could establish some set of minimal qualifying criteria (tests, grades, civic involvement, extracurriculars, etc.), then throw all the names of those applicants meeting them into a hat (figuratively) and draw a matriculating class from that hat at random.

This gives me a sense of dread, as it foreshadows the dystopia created by the "slow glass" tech that debuted in the short story, Light Of Other Days. In subsequent stories in that universe, slow glass, which delays light passing through it, was ground into fine particles and distributed over the Earth, so that surveillance was ubiquitous. All one had to do to see what occurred was to retrieve some slow glass particles and wait for the light to emerge. With Smart Dust you wouldn't even have to go to that much trouble, since the motes can transmit their data. And, they'll have audio as well.

If Airbnb has filed, we can presume that present results are good enough to get it life, else the firm would have not filed and would have simply gone public later.

The idea of an IPO is to obtain as much money per share as possible, and with the current crisis ongoing, there's going to be a lot of hesitation and doubt. Why wouldn't you wait for a better climate in which to roll out the IPO and get a better price? I'm guessing the incumbent investors know or suspect something and are trying to bail while they can.

Even if everything you said is true, losing the case would cost Apple money and thereby incentivize it to take action against scammers in the future. Depriving scammers of the proceeds of their scams is also good, because they'd have to do something else. The real answer would be legislation, but I'd rather see the company fix this itself than get more government involved.

5 years isn't unreasonable. I've only had one phone out of seven that ever became unusable, the others I upgraded because phone capabilities were progressing at a rapid clip. Now I've got one, 3 years old, that does everything I need. I've never broken one; I always buy a sturdy case that protects the phone if dropped, which I almost never do. I had one phone battery swell up, but I always get phones with drop-in batteries so no big deal. I also buy phones that are a couple generations behind the current one, so a) they're cheap and b) if I break or lose it, it's not a traumatic event beyond the hassle to replace it.

Always wondered why you had to take a blue pill to remain where you already were.

Does gunpowder contain enough self oxidizers to ignite in a vacuum?