"Moist anjone" accurately describes my emotions right now.

Yeah, but we can't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, now can we?

I love how you said "We Tumblr now" because this is all I hear when the SJWs turn up and preach: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

Ah yes, let's semantically slice the fuck out of every last thing that someone else says that we dislike to further our anti-male sexist agenda. That ALWAYS makes us appear intellectually superior and exposes that evil patriarchy shit that we blame everything on because we're too busy trying to feel like we're making society better to make an actual effort to succeed in the workplace.

Then we get the "reading comprehension" bullshit that feminazis love to fall back on. There's no substance in anything you say. GTFO troll.

Have these people never heard of fucking DATA COMPRESSION? Good lord.

Precedent has already been set (at least in Canada) that if Monsanto "owns" any plant with its genes, Monsanto must pay for the cleanup costs of wherever those seeds may sprout. Since seeds can potentially end up growing almost anywhere and happily do so with no help from humans, Monsanto's arguments of ownership of a gene could bankrupt the company in the long term as their patented genes end up all over the place.

The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced (e.g. in the BIOS), and allow the user to flip the switch for higher rate support. At least, that's the first idea that came to mind. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than "kill all audio!"

You don't even know the difference between a product and a service. You also didn't read anything I wrote past the one word you're trying to latch on to in order to twist what I've said to suit what you want to think. Either you have a logical discussion about the topic or keep enjoying your incoherent, baseless, fundamentally broken monologue. At this point I might as well respond to you with [citation needed] and leave it at that.

I think we're done here.

The Novena costs way too much. It has a noble goal but is not accessible to anyone but those who either have a niche purpose for it or have money to burn. Why so expensive? Is it the lack of mass manufacturing?

I'm looking at it from a bottom-up perspective. You're looking at it as "industry exist, industry is regulated, therefore anyone who wants to do something similar should be regulated exactly the same way." I'm looking at it as "why do we need the regulation that exists? What justifies each specific regulation? Are those justifications sufficient to reasonably support the regulation? What is the definition of a "taxi service" and how does it apply to Uber?"

Also, a correction to your statement: Uber is NOT giving anyone a ride. Uber is a middleman service. They don't employ any of the drivers. By your logic, anyone who organizes a carpool is a taxi service and subject to the same onerous regulations that a taxi service is. If that means paying exorbitant amounts of money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a "taxi license" then so be it. Don't like it? Don't set up a carpool or vanpool.

You'll have to explain exactly how it is that people giving other people car rides for a few bucks is a scam.

Yes, and the solution is to eliminate that requirement.

Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.

Not being the one who made the assertion, I was simply attempting to illustrate that very long-standing security holes can and do exist in modern operating systems in common use. I'm not here to defend that assertion as it is not necessarily correct (most security holes in 8.1 are as-yet undiscovered since the OS itself is quite new!) The bugs I've pointed out existed for many years before being found and fixed. The standard response to "open source is better because people can find and fix the bugs" is to wait for a bug to appear, then screech loudly about how the existence of the bug shows that open source is a fatally flawed security-hole-ridden model of software development, blah blah blah ad nauseam. Clearly this is complete and utter bullshit since an infinite pool of available code reviewers != all bugs preemptively fixed, but such is the process of arguing with zealots on the Internet, so the next best thing is to illustrate that closed source is no better than open source.

I'd like to point out that in one of my other comments here, I've tried to explain that Apple's critical SSL bug was there for years even though Apple leverages the full advantages of both closed- and open-source models in their Darwin kernel. If that happened despite having the positives of BOTH models available, how the hell is anyone in either-or supposed to avoid making the same mistakes? Humans code, humans commit errors, end of discussion.

It is, but it has a massive team of paid developers behind and working on that open source code every single day. My point was that even Apple had such a serious flaw, despite the benefits of both open source code AND hordes of paid developers actively working on it. Every new OpenSSL bug now triggers a bombardment of knee-jerk ignorant armchair quarterbacking about how "OpenSSL is clearly shit and the developers clearly suck and open source software sucks." Yet we see that even taking on the benefits of BOTH sides of software development, somehow Apple's SSL stack ended up with a devastating security-murdering bug not unlike Heartbleed.

At the end of the day, devs are human and make mistakes like everyone else, and that's just not a good enough explanation to some of the people here.