The government couldn't get him on hiking the price of the drugs, they got him on securities fraud.

He is very clearly the exception and even then not even a good case study about the actual issue https://www.pharmacist.com/art... the company actually selling the drug that he was a CEO of didn't drop the price, he was dumb enough to take the heat off of them and now they get to rake in the profits.

Just checking his history he did this exact thing before tiopronin (brand name, Thiola) was spiked in price from $1.50 to $30 a pill but this time he wisely kept out of the public spotlight and got away with pretty much zero consequences. So maybe if the person is that cocky / stupid that they create so much public pressure that they end up denounced by pretty much all the presidential candidates and find themselves in a congressional hearing and then all the government can get to stick are three securities fraud charges which got him a whopping 7 years in jail and 7.5 million fine (his net worth now is 27.1 million).

That doesn't sound like the government has much control if such an extreme case like Shkreli will be free in less than a decade. None of the drugs he spiked in price have gone back down to anywhere near the pre-Shkreli price spikes so the damage is pretty much done and is not reversing nor do I expect it ever will.

Such a network with such fast moving, constantly changing nodes is probably the worst case for building such a mesh, and as such is at least a couple years if not a decade or so away (I would love to be proven wrong). Projects like the balloons allow the engineers to isolate certain issues and work on others (In this case they seem to be focusing on the RF links between the balloons, the downlinks are most likely just re-purposed satellite earth stations) until eventually they can make the plane based network work at decent scale. For the planes one of the major issues is there are almost no constant "anchors" that can be used to bootstrap a client node entering the network, the distances we are talking about mean any sort of 802.11/DHCP style broadcast can't work without requiring allot of RF power on the client side. Maybe some sort of hybrid could work, with the balloons providing lower capacity links primarily for co-ordination and the bulk of the network capacity being provided by the planes?

I wouldn't fight too much with scaling it to ludicrous speeds vs going for complete coverage as realistically it's goal isn't to provide constant internet to a city but to rural / maybe suburban areas where normal high capacity broadband doesn't make monetary sense. One of the major limitations of satellite is not only the atmosphere but how expensive it is to refuel them, the satellite itself has to generate the downlink signal (think from a cell tower to your cell phone) and when its behind the earth has to do so completely running off of its internal batteries which need to last 10+ years to make the satellite profitable so transmit powers are limited hence most satellite dishes are so large (a huge monetary deterrent if required on the remote side of the link, most earth station dishes are naturally large to make up for signal losses in other parts of the system and the cost of that one dish spread out over the other links) and need to be aligned with allot of precision (even geostationary satellites are not very stationary).

Plans are already in place working toward that goal https://newatlas.com/airborne-...

I remember a campaign promise to reduce regulations (2 removed for every one added). Now mix in that he has a friendly legislature who would also be interested in such changes and I wouldn't count on these points remaining true.

Any AMD card to work with AMD's drivers is a pretty strong statement that I find hard to believe. Especially given the amount of reviewers that put AMD cards up against nVidia cards whenever a new one from either camp comes out seems to indicate a PEBCAK issue (almost all the reviewers I watch / read include stuff like the drivers / included software gave us these problems when we tried using it or we hate the interface because its clunky so I would expect driver issues to come up if they were experiencing them).

I have used both and in the main they both work reasonably well I've had the occasional issue with both camps (e.g. had to completely uninstall nvidia drivers and do a fresh install to get mpeg decoding acceleration working at least once, I've also had some fun getting OpenCL working on the RX 280 in my current desktop).

The problem would be that this is a SWAT team, the 911 call already stated that someone is already dead or close to it (the callers dad), also the only other people in the house should be female, which leads to a situation where it is reasonable to assume the person I front of them is armed.

Some post mortem analysis says the police should have noticed that the person answering the door didn't have a phone in their hand while they were supposedly on the phone with 911, but I would be surprised if that kind of information would work it's way through to the field team if they believe the shooter has neutralized his primary threat (the supposed Dad, who was fighting with his mom).

Take a step back and look at what could have been known by the various parties at the time and I have a harder time "convicting" this police officer. I have different opinions of other scenarios but in this case I fully understand them being on edge.

I could see your Fox and CNN but you lost me when Breitbart got involved.

A bug like that tends to involve the video drivers (hardware acceleration), on almost any other system a privileged user is able to override the updates until the bug is fixed. Worse yet if the bug takes a while to fix, Microsoft will force the upgrade multiple times over that period (each time for a known issue).

I am yet to see any business that runs on bleeding edge code for all production systems (heck most hardcore gamers don't upgrade video drivers at bleeding edge, unless there is a specific improvement they are looking for), at best its a wait X amount of time (a week, a month) after an update comes out in a dev environment to catch any glaring issues before rolling out en masse. Microsoft's latest only policy for low level device drivers is one of the last things they care for / need.

Which confuses me as to why that option wasn't used.

The claimants are deaf so sure they cant do it but I'd help a kickstarter that wanted to caption these videos.

I have seen zero evidence to your statement "Ask the institution if they specifically wanted to exclude some people", from what I've seen these are videos that their students use, no better, no worse. If someone disabled were to enroll in one of these courses they would most likely caption (for deaf) / have someone describe what is being shown (for blind) at that point (catering to the specific disability the student has). Its an omission, sure but I think you will have a hard time with the argument that Berkeley said "Screw the deaf / blind people!!! Muhahaha" (Dr Evil style).

By your definition Google, Facebook or any university releasing open source software like TensorFlow (used for 'understanding' what is in an image) not being accessible to blind people is a violation (if you want to be able to do any testing / work on TensorFlow itself you need to be able to see to confirm what the software is telling you is correct).

It is more fiscally responsible, Berkeley's copies are behind a paywall (the YouTube copies are being taken down), they have lost nothing. It will be captioned as and when their students need it using the tuition money paid to Berkeley. Sanity is not what I call using free course materials to teach a class and rather than add the missing captions instead sue the university providing the original material, I'd call that laziness (you didn't have to come up with the actual course material, at least you can caption it or pay to have it captioned, crowdfunding would be a wonderful model for this as everyone benefits).

From the actual DoJ filing "Stacy Nowak, a member of NAD, is a professor and PhD student at Gallaudet University and she is deaf. Ms. Nowak would like to avail herself of what she believes is the increasingly frequent use of video and audio-based scholarship. Ms. Nowak teaches communication courses at Galludet, including Introduction to Communication and Nonverbal Communication. She would like to use numerous online resources related to communication in her classes, including the UC BerkeleyX course, “Journalism for Social Change,” but cannot because they are inaccessible. If UC Berkeley’s online content were accessible, she would take courses and utilize the online content in her lectures. "

Should California students / tax payers pay the cost of captioning for a university in DC? If it costs little to nothing to put on youtube in its original form and lots of people can benefit that seems like a pretty moral / easy decision to make which Berkeley did by putting the videos on YouTube. Who is going to pay not only to get the missing captions added but the lawyer fees to have it checked against whatever other crazy law that exists? Leaving it up risks another lawsuit, hence taking down the videos from youtube is their best move here.

Sanity would be either a Judge or legislative branch recognizing this is a misapplication of this law and pushing to get it updated (as far as I can tell this did not reach a court house). Take this not even to its logical conclusion but the literal next step, the DoJ filing lists edX and iTunes U. If those organizations are even remotely fiscally responsible (Apple has allot of money which will attract frivolous lawsuits), the appropriate response is to immediately disable public access to any courses that are missing captioning until captions can be added (whenever that happens). Leaving the content online is begging for a lawsuit with some pretty strong precedent in place.

So instead of bringing a lawsuit why didn't Gallaudet University (or the employees in question) put some people on the task of adding the missing subtitles / captions? It would probably been cheaper. Heck try to crowd fund it if you deem it worthy.

I unfortunately have to agree with Berkeley's statement "Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from 'pirates' who have reused content for personal profit without consent.". Berkeley is giving away their course videos, the claimants were most likely were using it to teach their own students with nothing going back to Berkeley (no issues up to this point), and then they probably had a disabled student who needed the captions and decided to sue Berkeley to get the captions added rather than add the captions themselves (the videos were on YouTube, its extremely easy to add subtitles / translations once the original poster has allowed it).

Now that the videos are behind a paywall Berkeley has lost nothing (the university and their students still have access to the videos and any updates from the professors that produced the original videos) with any captioning happening if / when a student needs it with the tuition Berkeley receives paying for the captioning. An example of this is coursera's policy which does have much better captions (most of their courses are paid though) but even they have a reasonable clause at the end to catch any cases that they missed "To request additional accommodations, please contact Coursera support. When you contact us to request accommodations, please include: A specific request for a modification that would help you, Links to up to two active courses for which you'd like accommodations"

So what happens if we place any of the systems holding data outside of said courts jurisdiction?

Also to your "You knowingly and pre-meditatedly designed a system to frustrate the most common copyright enforcement mechanism" attack, encryption pretty much does the same thing (can't enforce copyright if you don't know what's in the data stream).

Why bother giving the videos away at all? What benefit other than good-will (obviously wasted on these students) does it provide the university?

Maybe not, the original videos can be created by putting up a camera in a class and if required getting permission from the students that they will show up in an online video. Transcription may involve having to go to the professor to identify muffled words or at least someone "in the know" to understand what is meant from context (the transcript needs to be at least double checked).

What I think you have missed is what incentive does a university like Berkeley have to publish these lectures? They potentially make less money now, as anyone can now access the course for free (if these were required for an online course then the tuition could easily cover the cost of transcription). So if any department of Berkeley wants to try to release class materials online for free, this lawsuit just armed the Dean / Principal with a very appropriate response of "How do you plan to cover the cost of transcription?" obviously such a program will not have any funding approved as yet so will almost immediately get shut down (do universities have staff to deal with transcribing?). So rather than giving away the course for free and having to cover the cost of transcription the university can just say "fuck it" to the whole concept.