A colleague of mine working for Motorola patented encrypted memory sometime in the 2006-2010 timeframe. Maybe Motorola figured out that AMD was violating their patent and negotiated royalties privately with AMD. I don't know; I don't work at Motorola, but if AMD had to suddenly start paying royalties, it makes sense that they'd remove the feature from lower end, lower margin processors.

I'm personally convinced they're a cutout. They're being used to intentionally push this fear agenda so that the government can crack down and further implement the panopticon.

It's the only reasonable response to them repeatedly saying, "our products are dangerous". They're pushing for government intervention, and for whatever reason, want industry regulation or governmental industry control.

On one hand you've got potential nationstate-threatening technology which could take out power plants and penetrate sensitive top secret systems.

On the other hand you've got mean words and fake nudie pics.

I think your priorities are a bit fucked and navel gazing.

Well, yes :-) I was trying to correct the basic error without writing much...

NO. It is a crime to FALSELY shout fire in a theater. Huge difference.

Exactly.

You expect me to believe the thing that provided some income disparity relief for a large percentage of remote workers (same pay, lower costs from relocating) is at fault for others not having jobs? I've worked (remotely) with young people. They seem eager and capable, far more so than most other age demographics.

This is just companies finding excuses, looking to claw back more control.

It sounds like you don't understand how the court system works. The SCOTUS only hears cases which are brought before it, and then selectively.

Which cases specifically do you feel indicate corruption on the part of the SCOTUS? There are definitely some dissenting decisions which don't adhere to the US constitution, and there is definitely a long running theme in the courts of activist judges re-interpreting well defined language, and perhaps (probably) even a couple judges who are compromised, but I'm not aware of any evidence of corruption.

Does it? Let's see what Ubuntu does ...

Désolé, pas désolé

Just read her Wikipedia article. Should have thought of that sooner. Thanks for the push.

Yup, 2016 was the most recent crime she was convicted of, and it says terrorism in Germany does have a statute of limitation.

Thank you. Answers a lot of questions, such as did they artificially age 40-year old photos for the facial recognition.

Far as I know, there is no statute of limitations for major crimes like murder and terrorism. But it varies by state and has varied over time.

I spent four years in the navy as a supply clerk dealing with paper work and petty bureaucrats. I learned an outrageous number of ways to not cooperate while seeming to cooperate.

I appreciate digging up the response. I have long since lost the patience to deal with bureaucrats.

There is something decidedly amiss when the monopolist defines its own limits.

One vote every 2 or 4 years, for which insider controls the monopoly, is a pathetic outsider limitation on government.

Thanks, that is very interesting. But something smells fishy.

1. 1 false positive from "over 641,533 faces" seems too good to be true. Very few systems of any kind are that good, and facial recognition? I don't buy it. And that's an oddly specific number to be "over". It does not pass the smell test.

2. "Shows no bias" is similarly too good to be true and doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't Apple have some problem in the last year or two with trying to spiff up faces, where black skin didn't work as well? "No bias" is not credible.

3. "Zero unlawful arrests" is weasel words. Just because an arrest has conformed to various legal standards, such as having a warrant, being cautioned, not beaten up, etc, does not make it a proper arrest. Lots of people are acquitted at trial after having been lawfully arrested.

4. The rate has not changed. Well, yes, it must have, if this is the false positive rate, since it presumably once upon a time had 0 false positives and now has 1, and the denominator has been increasing all this time unless the first 641,533 faces were all recognized in the first day.

5. The only credible answer. There may well be no national false positive rate.

But it's an interesting response. Thanks.

I don't know what she's been doing. But from the fact that it took 40 years to track her down, and that only because a non-cop found her, I'd say the evidence is strong I know what she *hasn't* been doing -- terrorism, or training terrorists.

Seriously, if she's been living for 40 years training terrorists who haven't done anything to draw attention to themselves or her, she's either been running a false flag terrorist school with the government's connivance, or she hasn't been running a terrorism school.

If society wants to punish her for what she did 40 years ago, fine. But stop pretending the police took a dangerous terrorist off the streets.

If she's been in hiding for 40 years, she's not exactly violent any more. Her capture has nothing to do with public safety at this point, more for revenge and closing the record with some HooRah We Got Her theatrics.