I don't have the best radar for irony, but I think I am picking some up.

The money did not influence the outcome of the trial. It merely paid for lawyers that had a winning argument already. What is immoral about that?

Nothing at all, I was merely around for the community of it.

Hobbyists don't usually drop 10k+ on little ASIC farms, that is left to misguided investors.

Source: pathetically bitter ex-dogecoin miner

"Science"

Not only do I agree that these phrases aren't necessarily meaningless because they were not intended to be hold meaning, but IIRC the 'researcher' said the average ratings for these statements were about ~2.3/5 or "relatively profound" - something that strikes me as merely being worth pause, rather than this genius scholar's successful trickery in getting plebs to believe in like, totally fake philosophy that he like, didn't even muse on.

As a Schengen state, how effective could that be?

..Closes borders?

It may be sour, but is it wrong?

Why not link the pdf?

I'm really not happy about this either, and fake quotes are usually quite obvious, but as a title here it ends up being just as dishonest as cheeky, and does little credit to the cause as such.

I didn't see any quote by Murdoch in the article.

Ugh, don't we have a swanky and well funded internet-based startup to fix this yet?

Surely, but it won't be easy. As far as I know the Federal Arbitration Act provides practically no oversight of arbitrators, and instead just exists to make whatever trash said arbitrator puts on a slip of paper is legally binding, so we must then look to case law, but in the supreme court instances the rulings have consistently ruled in favor of unbreakable waivers of rights to trial.

All thanks to the supreme court for allowing a table of life-long partisans to disregard the right to a fair trial.

Iceland has truly handled 2008 the best, but don't forget that somebody always gets burned.

I'm plenty skeptical, of course, though this is at least better than magical cubesats to beam "WiFi" to consumer cellphones.

"Wow IS is so cool, I would love to blow up my country's heritage!"

Such a fantastic battle plan, no doubt the most stable caliphate yet.

Biddle is such a fitting antagonist in this story. Nothing but a remorseless hypocrite, that just so happens to hold an editor position at Gawker.

Pulling up the pendulum...

Apple cannot reap the legal benefits of licensing its software in this manner and then later disclaim any ownership or obligation to assist law enforcement when that same software plays a critical role in thwarting execution of a search warrant.

It would set a nasty precedent, but the court is damn right in saying "You can't hold full control over this device and then say you don't feel like controlling this device." - They're going to have to take responsibility for their walled garden.

That topic of contention for the article is only a small point compared to how big they weigh on precedent too here, in that Apple has been for the longest period, happily extracting data and handing it over to the feds at a time that just so happened to be when the rewards for such over-weighed community outcry. Now that privacy has gone much more mainstream, the DoJ really has them by the balls with pointing out that they can't just flop around that easily for free PR. I find it to be some accountability for basing a company's 'ethics' off what is in rather than having a little consistency.

In the short term the precedent would really be nasty, and certainly not beneficial to me as an end user in any way. In the long term however, I think this going through will finally force companies to license rationally once it becomes precedent that jailing the user also means they have to watch their prisons.

I haven't seen anything to suggest firearm pickpockets or thieves pose such a threat as to warrant restrictions like that, nor that such restrictions would do more good than harm.

IANAL of course, but this seems like something that should be manslaughter related rather than something for the DMV to muck around in or 'Get tough on drivers' legislation that makes this crime of manslaughter or serious injury through negligence a misdemeanor. And though I see plenty of lobbying to these parties I see no mention of lobbying the person perhaps most able to bring justice - the prosecutor.

And though I guess poor application of these laws applies to cyclists too, I don't see why that is a tag considering the article doesn't directly pertain to them.

Sorry, I should be clear - I take issue instead with how you think restricting carry zones increases safety, for as far as I know it simply isn't relevant to mass shootings.

How is this relevant to stopping mass shootings?

Japanese police sources are worried that some of 2chan’s sordid history of death, destruction, and evading justice could come to its American counterpart.

I appreciate when 'technology culture' writers tell the reader they didn't do their research right off the bat.

You have a real strong opinion on these devices despite admitting you don't know or understand the internals - which I would refer to as a much more objective measurement than "this computer feels elegant"

Keep them busy and they simply won't have the energy to do their due diligence in digesting ideas -instead just taking in whatever the RT department in the Ministry of Truth churns out.

Trying to rationalize it sure doesn't make me feel better about it though...

Reputation ruined or not, this man is in the unique position of having a federal organization admit it has done something absurdly negligent: $$$?

Many of you are already familiar with 'Jewish Ritual Murder.' During the times of Jewish holidays, top rabbis will abduct Gentile children and use them in their ritual sacrifices to Jewhova.

Ehhh I fear I am not quite familiar with that...