Operators imposing withdrawal limits are one of the actual 'red flags' of Ponzi schemes.

If it looks like a duck and... etc

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.

He was indeed very important but Trumbull only did half the VFX work on Blade Runner.

source

It's a film that must be seen at a cinema.

Not just because of scale or resolution, but because of the 'captive audience' principle. You see it end-to-end, no distractions, no ability to pause the film, make coffee or suchlike.

That applies to the pacing of all the VFX in the film. Those glacially slow exterior space scenes would never make it into a modern film, uncut. But in 2001, they're 'tableux' that you can take the time to look really carefully at.

How is

oathtool -b --totp 'secret'

a giant pain in the backside?

It has valuable movie rights.

This is going to be 'The Hunt for Red October' meets 'The Abyss'.

James Cameron's already been pencilled.

This project is already in progress!

Matt Stone and Trey Parker's Sassy Justice fights deepfakes with deepfaked humour.

But, like a lot of their work, the stupidity is underpinned with a serious message.

Isn't the issue this?:

Apple get the source code of apps on their app store and review the code - using automated tools - to check it's not malcious. And users can't sideload apps at the moment.

If Apple's security model has to change to enable sideloading, Apple don't get to review the source code of software that can run on their phones. They can only review compiled code akin to antivirus scanning.

That's a security threat because bad actors (eg border control, state security forces) could write malicious software tools that they would be able to run on an iphone to attack the device's security. And, apart from things like Pegasus or $5 wrench, they can't do that at the moment.

That's just my understanding and happy to be corrected if it's wrong. But it seems different to just 'competition, marketing, profit threat' etc.

Was this cryptocurrency idea before or after Kushner solved the Middle East peace process?

It's going to make proof-of-work *less* environmentally friendly because the miners with previous generation cards will have to dump them and upgrade to low-power consumption cards to compete with the miners who are using the new cards.

*More* raw materials used to construct the efficient cards, *more* landfill from the old ones.

Even the article says "It's currently unclear exactly what the applications of the patent would be for".

Photogrammetry hardware and software has been used in film VFX for years. It's a well-established process, whether by photos, lidar or a myriad of other processes.

But 'near retirement age' is the exact demographic for spectacles.

Ageing-prog-rockers-with-rapidly-declining-eyesight UNITE!

This is completely wrong, POCA 2002 doesn't need a criminal burden of proof for a CRO to be issued.

My UK company was subjected to one of these pieces of legal B.S. in 2005 - we won the case but were unable to recover our legal expenses because the CRO was served through the civil courts.

I gave the details on POCA 2002 and CRO in another reply.

But they have an extremely strong law on their side: the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Part 5 allows them to use 'civil forfeiture' which means they can seize assets from people who aren't criminals using the civil courts and the civil burden of proof.

That means the police don't need to prove to the court that their target is a criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt', only that the funds were ill-gotten 'on the balance of probabilities' which is a far easier burden of proof to satisfy.

The police then apply for a CRO (Civil Recovery Oder) so the funds are repaid to the court & forwarded to the police, rather than repaid directly to the police. Which means if the target does not pay up they are in contempt of court - a criminal offence. At that point the courts can use criminal law to recover the CRO funds without the original offence needing to be a criminal one.

Even worse: if you're innocent and have a CRO served on you but win the case, it's almost impossible to recover your legal costs because the CRO was served through the civil courts rather then the criminal ones.

I don't know anything about astrophysics. But whenever I hear about one of these new theories that 'elegantly unifies' etc it always reminds me of a bunch of guys in a pub trying to stop their table from wobbling by putting bits of beer mat under different table legs.