That aside... my question is -- who the hell is going to use it sufficient to justify the cost?

Or is it intended, in due course, for the convenience of the Chinese Army??

Well, you can't get worse than me.... finally got around to upgrading the CPU in the ...15 year old box. Doubled its performance! :)

Here's to hoping that one day you pass into adulthood.

It's so much easier not to say anything.

Not materially different from your immune system killing off the weaker individuals. A few stronger individuals may survive, and then what has your immune system done? Selected for a stronger pathogen.

I remember a paper from a few years ago which concluded that this was basically how we wound up with deadly diseases in the first place -- being the ones that throughout history have managed to be stronger than the host's immune system.

Vaccine simply cuts out the stage where lots and lots of hosts get sick or die.

If you can still see the food, there's not enough butter.

Well, there is that, hardly worth the quarter of a cent or whatever it comes to. But if such a case can get a court to tack on a significantly painful asshole penalty... it might discourage others.

"...at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down..."

Seems to me that a case could be made that per the DMCA, they owe you 3x damages.

.. all at the behest of the tinfoil industry.

They were probably just making a reference sample.

It's the same kind of "Mommy fix!" crying kids do now because they've been taught that hyperprotective parents will save them from anyone saying mean things, and kiss their boo-boo for them and give them lots of attention every time they cry.

So now we're expected to all be these professional victims' hyperprotective online parents. Boo-hoo, mommy fix!! and give 'em milk and cookies while we're at it.

I was a lot more sympathetic before I read Wu's own words on the subject, and followed the little arrows to where she was doing what when. And... you're absolutely right.

As far as I've paid attention (I read gamergate.community articles occasionally), one thing I've noticed is that GamerGate itself is very much about self-policing, and harrassment of *anyone* is roundly discouraged.

BTW great post up above (the one that got the +5, I'd give it +10).

"What rights do men have that woman do not?"

The right to be the huge majority of on-the-job deaths comes to mind.

Or maybe it looked to them like she had progressed in her career and even if she wasn't who they wanted last year, maybe this year she is, but when they got as far as checking out her in-person knowledge, it wasn't there yet. People are not static.

Or could be she seemed like a great candidate, good enough to give a second-third-fourth chance, but once they had her in person they could tell she was still the same person they didn't want before. (Sometimes a negative trait isn't outgrown or discarded, or gets worse.)

Could be all sorts of reasons, not just "HR not keeping track" let alone "too old". My guess, tho, given the lawsuit -- is that she seemed like a great candidate til they got a firsthand look at her attitude.

But you are a sheep. Just not Microsoft's sheep.