Having been a grunt and a manager in corporate SW environments for a while now, I can attest that claims like this don't require details or proof, just convincing.
Only if it also includes easily-exploitable security holes.
Maybe you can provide some clarification here. I read the article as this dude is suing the movie (producers, studio, distributors, et al), and not Snowden directly. I think this makes it even less likely he has standing. If he does, then it seems anyone can sue any movie studio, publisher, or entertainment type service claiming that the money they are making is unjust for reason X and they need to take all their profits and stuff them into a trust for Y. Then the trust for Y either goes back to the government in this case, or is distributed to the legal team and some coffee and cookies goes out to 'mericuh. (Sorry, this isn't done by an American, it's being perpetrated by someone who lives in 'mericuh and all the absurdity that surrounds that sub culture)
Where will the money go if he wins? As a side note, if it goes back to the gov't, it might be a good way to help reduce taxes. Sue all the entertainers, stuff all the trust monies into the treasury,
The tests indicate that our great nation would probably be more effective if Chicago and its descendents didn't exist at all. Genetically they will forever be poor and stupid, attached to the glass teat clamoring for more concussions while wallowing about in their fetid sties. Drunk and unable to form simple sentences, our once prosperous country will be held back from truly succeeding.
OH god, Thursday versus the Cowboys with my Irish, Polish, and German buddies is all rushing back to me. How can something so obviously farce/sarcasm be so absolutely true? Honestly, my friends and I drank heavily watching the Bears get slapped about. One has an Irish background, and two of them are Polish. I've got a German background. Plus, there was a very lazy guy from India there as well, so we can mostly just add more here if you want.
Web site operators have the attitude that their revenue stream is more important than the integrity of their visitors computer.
In other news, major corporations consider their revenue streams more important than anyones integrity. The NSA considers the ignoring the rights of Americans more important than constitutional integrity. Al Queda considers the rights of dead virgins to have sex with homely bearded unshowered men living in caves strapped to bombs more important than the dude sitting having coffee and a donut's rights or integrity.
The Internet was much better before it was infested with a bazillion sites which only exist to bring in advertising revenue.
Yes, hamster dance was the pinnacle of the internet revolution.
until one side builds an a-bomb so big that the world is afraid the Internet will split in two if detonated.
Yes, it's called legislation. Apple. Google, and the other multi-billion dollar ad servers will eventually go to congress to try to find a legislative way to make sure you watch advertisements if everyone stops viewing ads via whatever means. Just convince some idiot Senator who thinks the internet is made of tubes that advertisement and java blockers threaten security and the American way. I would argue this is a long shot, but not incomprehensible. There is a lot of money involved, and those who own the largest share of that money train would scorch the earth to keep it.
This is just free market economics at work. If ad blockers work well enough, most likely, creative people will find a new way to advertise. Then we find a new way to ignore the new ads. Rinse, repeat. Or, you can vote with your wallets. Just don't visit the sites with horrific advertising setups. Visit the sites that handle it gracefully. Very few people would complain about Google or Bing advertising. Just saying.
There is an enormous number of references to "Scientists" and "Texans" as some magical group of uniform thinking individuals. Thank god (lower case on purpose) there are a bunch of people with Science related degrees who perform jobs/hobbies that make use of scientific principles who can all think uniquely. Same with a bunch of individual thinking people in Texas. If we just had a bunch of Scientists and Texans, then it would be a very polar world, probably a good basis for an original Star Trek or Outer Limits episode.
In our attempts to make points, do we have to make the classic mistake of grouping large amounts of people into one group or another? Apparently, @seebs talks to scientists all the time who very clearly support his view. Flattering, being a Scientist and all, but still...
Most people I know who still subscribe would gladly ditch cable/satellite if they could stream ESPN even if it cost $20/month
This is the biggest problem, and why Cable/Hollywood/Big Four Sports all need cable to stick around. I'm just two channels shy of ditching cable completely, Fox Sports and NBCSN. I basically only watch live sports on TV, nothing else. My wife watches a bunch of stuff, but it's all on Netflix/Roku/Web so it doesn't hurt her to dump cable. I have MythTV that can record free OTA HD. But until I can watch the Bulls/Cubs (well...)/Blackhawks live, I'm out of luck, and face the issue of paying for cable. I may hate it, but right now, that's the choice. This is why the MLB, NHL, and NBA black out the local teams broadcast on their streaming services. Because Fox/ESPN/NBC/CBS force contracts that say they must (I doubt that clause is ever disputed). This is why people like me will chose to pay for content they don't care about to watch the content they do care about. I'd pay major sports double what they're charging now for online access to get local teams.
And good luck getting al a carte. HA!!! The FCC is simply making noise to at least look like they care about consumers. I'll be walking on Mars before they push that one through.
As a side note, the way channel costs are divided up are somewhat entertaining, as is the now regular fights between content providers and cable/sat companies.I think ESPN pry makes up almost $5 of the total cost of your bill on it's own and a small collection of big channels make up half of the total cost you pay. Whereas HGTV might be less than $.40 cents. It should be capitalism at it's best, but I think since there are like 4 or 5 content providers, it's pry more oligarchical than a good competition. This is here in the states, and based on some tables I saw a few years ago. I don't think it has changed much since then, or would assume not much based on a cable package costing somewhere between $60 and $80. Cable company has to make money too.
Maternity pay? Now every Tom, Dick and Harry will get pregnant. -- Malcolm Smith