You are forgetting that this is an e-sports software.. It calls home all the time anyway. So, maybe this would be a bit closer to me changing the tires on your car(the update that added the code), and I setup something in your engine that would make it idle even when you weren't there, generating something that you wouldn't have had in the first place. And then, every time you came back for more work(apparently, everday) I collected the generated whatever(bitcoins in this case).

It costs you a bit of gas, and I got something out of it for free. To cover the GPU's needing to be replaced could be compared to: If your car wasn't in the best of conditions, this might have put it over the edge, or not.

I used to run a small time mining op for a couple months. Dual GPU's working full tilt 24/7 cost about $30/month to run in increased electricity. So, the cost to the user(who's car didn't break) would likely be covered by their free month of the service.

Was what they did wrong? Of course. But is it some crazy thing we all need to be getting uppity about? Maybe. But these users did install this stuff of their own free will. If they had put it in the EULA, I don't see how this would be wrong.. granted most of us never read those things, but Sony removing my Other OS on my PS3 was in the EULA. Lots of us got mad about it, but it never changed. Want to keep your Other OS, then no online play for you.

Expect for, it doesn't apply. nitrous oxide is 'laughing gas'. I wouldn't call that a 'general anesthesia'.

Just put a display in there playing only the dumb parts of Idiocracy, and you get a high, dumbed down version of your customers.. who would want to fly more, just to be high on laughing gas and watch stupid movies.

"deliberate..attempt(s) to impede the viability of competitors."

In American law, I believe this would fall under Anti-Trust laws. Just because you aren't a monopoly(yet), doesn't mean that you aren't doing illegal things to attempt to create one. (Like, I dunno.. suing competitors into oblivion over something that is obviously prior art, or non-innovative(Can anyone say: rounded corners?))

Though, I could be wrong. IANAL.

I get the feeling that both options are correct.

Apple gets to fix a 'security bug', and make it so a jailbreak no longer works. This makes them look good(tough on security), and keeps the walls up. As your casual user who knows just enough to *want* other software(or, say enabling tethering on an iDevice with it disabled?), but not enough time/knowledge to find the latest jailbreak, will just keep it stock.

Those 18m downloads are the people that:
1) Own an iDevice
2) Updated this month
3) Needed a new jailbreak
4) Took the time to find it

That a lot of iDevice users.. I wonder if this had not been patched, how much higher this number could have been in another month.

The video in TFA sounds and looks like an MLM marketing video..

Poker.

Most major metropolitan US cities have a light rail system. These are powered electrically, Also, a lot of freight trains are powered electrically.

You've obviously never driven in the snow.. Using the handbrake in a FWD vehicle in the snow allows you to control braking, without losing traction on your power wheels. You have to feather it, be very careful, and you have to hold the release the whole time(setting the handbrake while driving would be, to be blunt, fucking retarded.), but it works.

Yo dawg, we heard that you like rain. So we made it rain, while someone rains on your story about your math teacher discussing rain!

Closer to impossible to contest. I received a RL ticket for a car in my name, but I was not the driver. Also the visor was down and you could not completely make out the driver, it was obvious it was my girlfriend, and not myself. After attempting to contest that, the judge told me it was my car, and therefor I was liable for any actions taken in it. Found me guilty of running a red light(while I was at work, with proof I was there), I had to take a safety class(in which in instructor was incredibly demeaning, and knew if you spoke up, he could throw you out, and you lost your license for failing to complete the class), and took a few points hit to my DL..

Now, I could have likely appealed this, and won in a county court vs the city court I was found guilty in; who has time to miss another day of work, and a possible double or triple in court fees because you just wouldn't shut up and pay your fine?

Your last point is exactly what makes these, and speeding camera, dangerous and even deadly. When these started going up in my state, I noticed a marked increase in rear-endings at the lights with these. My state also was the first to put the speed cameras on the freeway. Even though people routinely would do 90+ on that freeway, you rarely saw crashed.

After the speed camera's went up on the freeway, I personally witnessed 5 accidents directly caused by the camera. It didn't make people drive slower on that freeway, it just meant they would speed down the freeway, and SLAM on their brakes right before the camera, as to not get a ticket when passing the sensors. All it took was a driver not paying that much attention, and the driver in front of them changing speed by 20 MPH for no obvious reason, and BAM.

These things also have no judgement on whether your actions are safe, they just give you a ticket for doing anything over X. I don't know about you, but cruising under that limit to avoid a ticket, while every other car on the road is doing 10+ mph greater than you, is far more unsafe than the increase in speed. And it also works in the other direction: these things wont give someone a ticket for doing say 50 on the freeway, but if traffic is at a stop or slow crawl, you are being incredibly unsafe driving at those speeds, but the camera only sees you going under it's required limit.

What you're saying isn't much different than a police force kicking in someone's door based on eye witness testimony. Which has been proved many times to be both unreliable, misleading, and/or incorrect.(I could google more links than I could fit in that sentence, JFGI if you need proof of that statement)

Did that person really see you? Or do they think they see you? Hard to decide and/or prove both ways. I wont add anything more to that statement/question, take it as it is.

If there was an internet in their day and age, people would have been posting questions of the sort about the East India Trading Company and whom ever their competition was at the time of posting. Time changes all; though in your short amount here, it may seem like forever.

You are actually right and wrong here. Labor laws are different state to state.

The state I live in right now, is as you say it is. It's called an 'At Will' state. You and the employer can terminate relations for any reason, at any time.

OTOH, a different state I've lived in(Arizona) is a 'Right to Work' state. Meaning that your employer can't just fire you for no reason. They have to have a documented reason for firing you. Which also means you can then sue your (now former) employer for an unlawful termination, if you feel you didn't do anything wrong at the company, and can prove it to some degree.

I moderated this Funny, but felt a need to respond.

If we accept your numbers as the correct numbers, and that anything outside those numbers is guaranteed to be wrong; we can then calculate the likelihood of any one piece of data in any TFA's posted to /. .

For one piece of data, we have 1. We know that 20% of the time, it's going to outright fail. So, 0.8 chance, 1 being 100%. Of that amount, we know that 75% of the time, it will be right. So, 0.8 * 0.75 = 0.6.

We also know that 44% of that 0.6 is possibly correct. So 0.6 * 0.44 = 0.264.

We again know that 87% of that 0.264 is correct. 0.264 * 0.87 = 0.22968.

But, only 9 times out of 10. 0.22968 * 0.9 = 0.206712.

Now, we can state that for any given piece of data, on any TFA on /. there is a 20.6712% chance of it being correct.

Which, oddly enough, doesn't sound that far off.