Thinking further, it seems like it'd be impossible to separate things because commodities future trading is in fact a kind of gambling. When you buy a futures contract, you're betting that the price of the commodity will go above the contract price. The seller is betting it won't. The only difference is what you get if you win the bet. dollars or eg. corn. Once you allow intangibles in, even that distinction disappears. The dissent has a point, but I think the majority is correct as to the law and if people don't like it then the law needs to be changed to restrict what can be traded on a commodities market.

You know, looking at the definition, I could probably make the argument that a pull on a slot machine is a "swap" per the definitions as long as the casino operator jumped through the hoops to get declared a DCM.

Maybe the legal experts could sit down and work out how to modify licenses (including the GPL/LGPL) to be for non-commercial use only? As long as an entity wasn't making money using FOSS, it could use it just like now. Individuals and non-commercial projects wouldn't be affected. But if you're a business making money using FOSS? Not without paying for it you're not. Yes, this would go against the free-software principles. But principles don't pay the bills every month, and none of these changes would prevent anyone from staying with the existing licenses if they wanted to.

The first thing I think of as a problem would be a company setting up a separate entity that wouldn't make money, just make services available to the company using FOSS to get around the fees. The trick to preventing this would be to phrase the terms so that that entity truly had to pay it's own bills without having the company using it's services pay anything either directly or indirectly. Not even by doing things like providing hosting "free". I'd have to sit down with a bunch of rules lawyers and game out all the ways to funnel money into that entity and how to block them, but what's life without a little challenge?

That's something I've said for a long time. And unlike permanent DST, going to permanent standard time doesn't require Congressional approval. Any state can do it any time by just passing a law.

Is MS doing the blocking themselves, or is it an RBL that's doing it? And if an RBL, which one? The MS mail admins can answer those questions easily, and then affected senders can direct their attention to the appropriate target.

Is it AI driving this? Or is it just the fact that if your gross margins are 70-90% there's a lot of difference between the value you're providing and the price you're charging and your customers are recognizing that? Because I've done tests with Claude and while it might be acceptable for boilerplate code it still falls on it's face with complex business requirements and logic unique to specific internal processes that don't appear elsewhere.

A V8 in a city is strictly for racing. It's got too much power for most purposes. The one place it does have a use, trucks or vans for carrying heavy commercial/industrial loads, isn't a huge market compared to personal use. Big pickup trucks look and sound impressive, until you need to find a parking spot for them. Or deal with rough streets. Or tight residential streets. Or stop-and-go traffic. Then practicality wins out.

I look at the US auto industry today and see it repeating the strategy of the early 70s. We know how that ended. The same motivations are at work now. Their focus groups may say "big and powerful", but consumer wallets say "small and economical".

The AIs understand "stakes" just fine. They just understand them correctly, without human emotion getting in the way. Humans place an emotional value on other humans, even if they're the enemy. Computer algorithms don't. They calculate in cold hard numbers, optimizing for the lowest casualty count on their side for the least cost and effort. Casualty count on the enemy side, if it factors in at all, is a lower priority than reduced casualties on the computer's side.

Yes, that's horrifying. Go ask some first responders about triage at a major accident scene. They have to do much the same thing when the injuries are more than they have resources to manage.

Cyanide safety training at a mine: "When the cyanide alarm sounds, leave the area. Do not stop. If you see someone down, do not stop to help them. Not stopping gives the rescue teams 1 person they know to go in after because you told them. Stopping gives them 2 people to go in after, except they don't know that because you're down and dying of cyanide exposure and can't tell them.".

Most of the boot time on my machine(s) is spent turning on the MB hardware and getting it configured. Generally that takes between 5 and 10 seconds, with the Z790 machines being on the high end and the older Z470 being on the low end. Once Linux gets control most of the time is spent on USB devices. Not sure on the Windows boxen because they don't show that info.

Create a non-AI-based (thus much more efficient) tool that scans filings for case citations and checks them against the legal records. Flag any that don't exist. For those that do, provide the language around the citation saying what the filing claims that case says and the actual judgement part of the case on record for a human to review. That'll make it quick to flag citations that don't say what the filing claims they say. Anything flagged results in an automatic dismissal of the case and sanctions against the filing attorney. If we need to speed things up, don't bother with the rest of the checks if any citations get flagged as non-existent. It shouldn't be too hard to get things to the point where filings with these sorts of blatant errors get processed and rejected, cases dismissed and sanctions imposed before the defendants are even served.

If you think addictive design isn't a thing, I suggest you visit Las Vegas and walk through any casino gaming floor. You'll find it a disorienting experience beyond anything you'll encounter elsewhere. Flashing lights, constant noise, lack of reference points to tell where you are. Hells, even the carpets are custom designs for the casino featuring abstract patterns in contrasting colors that confuse your sense of direction. And to top it off, mirrors everywhere that reflect the floor and make the space seem larger than it is. All of it's designed very deliberately to achieve an effect: leave you confused about where you are, what direction you need to go to get somewhere, even what time it is. The goal: keep you wandering the gaming floor for as long as possible so you have the greatest chance of getting attracted to the games and starting to play and the greatest chance of not realizing how long you've been there or how much you've truly spent playing.

Cryptographic verification of the system components and all the other stuff is important, it's a way to detect and limit the damage once a system is compromised and in the process of being infected by malware. That, though, happens far too late. For it to work you have to assume that the parts of the system that enforce verification don't have exploitable bugs in them, and we've already seen that's never the case. Especially when a single key held by a single entity is the trust root for a large number of systems.

We need changes in application and user behavior that make phishing attempts more difficult, make it easier to detect that an email or document wasn't sent by the entity it purports to have been sent by. We need changes that reduce the available attack surface of the system, especially undocumented attack surfaces (eg. systemd's invisible SSH server), and make it more obvious to users when something's active that they didn't ask to be active. We need applications that don't assume they have full access to the entire system and won't work without it.

As part of Win11, that sounds an awful lot like the task bar. Why not just allow the task bar to be positioned at the top as well as the bottom? If it's application-specific, doesn't that belong in the application window as part of it's menu bar or status bar or as a side bar?

This proposal requires that the printers have an active network connection. What's going to happen when the printer isn't connected to the network, or isn't allowed access beyond the local network? I consider blocking printers and other devices not intended for remote use from having Internet access a minimum precaution against botnets searching for devices to compromise.

Correction, text of link should read "Chapter 85". The link itself points to the correct chapter.