|
People who upload the torrents have a single encode target to hit. HBO Go has to work on multiple hardware targets from 4 year old android phones to the latest game systems. It has to work with bandwidth targets from <1mbps to >10mbps. It has to deal with audio formats from stereo PCM to DD 5.1. A torrentor just has to snag the MPEG4 transport stream as HBO sends it and slap it into a new container. There's a huge difference in work involved and even if it was all automated it probably wouldn't be done in enough time to put it up at the same time the show airs.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Renewed for a 3rd and 4th season! http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/02/17/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-renewed-for-seasons-3-4-by-hbo/364390/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:To Pittsburgh's credit, the bridge referenced with the structure underneath it to catch falling materials is being torn down and replaced this year. And it's going to make my life a living hell for the week where they have to close the parkway to demo it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
The Puerto Rico question is tricky because so far, the majority has rejected statehood, at least tacitly. A referendum was held in 2012. While 52% expressed disatisfaction with the current status and 61% of the votes cast selected statehood, the majority of the votes cast were blank. That meant that while statehood captured 61% of the 3 choices presented (statehood, fully independent state, or independent state with association with US), it was actually only 45% of the actual vote cast with the majority of people basically stating they didn't like all 3 choices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:If you choose not to vote, you give up the right to have your opinion matter. It's like saying that Obama shouldn't be President because only 30% of eligible Americans voted for him. They didn't choose not to vote. They voted with a blank ballot. That's a significant difference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:What does it mean? They'd rather stick with the current system? No, they voted that they were dissatisfied with the current situation They just didn't like the 3 alternatives that the change would be and left that question blank. If I were to wager a guess, they want a change that does not involve independence or statehood but gives them greater political voice in the federal government. JohnSherman posted:Much like with the Presidential election, if you don't vote for someone on the ticket, you basically didn't vote. A majority of voters who answered the question as well as a plurality of all voters picked statehood. That's clear enough to begin the process of admitting them. No, you're missing the forest for the trees. It sin't the same thing since this outcome tells us unequivocally that if there was a general referendum where the only question is "Do you want Puerto Rico to become a state?" it would fail. Only 54% of people want change in the first place and only 45% of those who want change want to become a state. That means a general referendum on statehood would likely have an outcome of only about 25% for statehood. It's possible that some of the people who voted for other options like independence would vote for statehood if there were no other options, but it seems pretty unlikely at this point that statehood would pass a general referendum right now based on the 2012 results.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:This is incorrect. The percentage of people who voted for change and the percentage of people who voted for statehood were not associated like this. First off, you are right, 25% was in error as I assumed those who did not reject the first question did not vote on the 2nd which was wrong. However, when taking all ballots into account including ones that were blank on the 2nd question, statehood only got 45%. You cannot ignore this data. quote:However, a fair reading of the referendum results shows clearly that the headlines proclaiming that a majority of Puerto Ricans support statehood are misleading and erroneous, and certainly promote considerable cynicism regarding Puerto Rico's political process. Indeed, the votes of nearly half a million voters who did not support statehood were not counted. These voters deliberately left blank the second part of the ballot, in effect stating that they preferred a fourth option to the three options listed on the ballot. These voters likely would have supported a fourth option, choosing some form of commonwealth status similar to the current arrangement, but since this option did not appear on the ballot, would have checked a box marked "other" if such a ballot option was available, which it was not. The absence of this fourth option, and the reason for its omission, explain why the official results of this referendum are spurious, and certainly do not support the dramatic headlines proclaiming Puerto Rico's approval of statehood. Say what you will about them throwing away their vote or not participating in the process. Had this been a real referendum with a binary decision on whether or not Puerto Rico should be a state, those half million voters wouldn't leave it blank or say yes. They would have said no. As of 2012, the majority of Puerto Rico did not want to become a state. The majority wants change of some sort, but they are very divided about what that change should be. This is further supported by the 1998 referendum that had 5 options including "None of the above". Satehood got 46% and "None of the above" got 50%. This time they simply eliminated "None of the above" nudge the results in a particular direction. The governor-elect actually called for people to leave the 2nd question blank because the party wanted to retain current status and that wasn't one of the options given. The federal government allocated funds to have another referendum vote as of last year. It will be interesting to see the results of this one will be and how the questions are framed. This is the first referendum to be funded by the federal government rather than Puerto Rico. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:"Retain current status" was one of the options given. It was asked in the first question, and still managed to receive fewer votes than statehood. More people in Puerto Rico want statehood than want any other type of government. "Retain current form of Territorial Status" was the framing of the first question. Many people would like to retain Territorial status but alter the form that would give them more say in the current government. quote:You make a big assumption in that every vote for something other than statehood would necessarily be a vote against it. The majority may not consider statehood their first choice, but independence and free association are both hilariously bad options given Puerto Rico's economic reliance on the US. Those two options made up almost 39% of the vote, and I think you'd see that voting bloc fracture if it really came down to it. All I have to say is that it's telling that the 1998 referendum had virtually no one vote for independence, free association, OR continuance of the current form of territorial status and instead chose "None of the Above" as the majority over satehood. We'll have to agree to disagree because there's not much point in in derailing this thread further. I just do not expect Puerto Rico to become a state anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Really the only viable solution is to knock the system back a few pegs and limit the commercialization (or the incentives to commercialize.) Keeping the system the way it is and paying players is only masking the situation and making is slightly less exploitative to the players. The primary purpose of college athletics should be to enhance the utility of college form a student's perspective. Athletics do help train for leadership and teamwork which, along with a good education, can lead to a more successful life down the road. If we want a semi-pro league, then we should create semi-pro leagues and do away with the pretense of school. Here are a few things that could be done to help the situation. Limit coach salaries and bring them in line with other educators at an institution. Investment into athletic facilities should be capped at a percentage of the revenue pulled in by the program. The rest should be used to improve facilities for all students with a significant chunk used for need based tuition aid for students both inside (in the event a scholarship doesn't cover all expenses) and outside the athletic program. Strict limits should be placed on training time per day to ensure the student athlete has enough time to do schoolwork. Zero tolerance for paper courses. Under no circumstances should any money directly derived from the program be used to pay any administration of the school or any coaching staff. Personnel budgeting should remain a wholly separate process based on normal revenue streams for the institution. Commercial sponsorship should be limited to providing equipment and any ads placed in an arena for a televised game should be capped at local rates without a television audience taken into account. In the end, people would still get to root for their favorite teams. They could still have televised games. They could still even make a decent chunk of money. However, that money would be used to making student life better as a whole and enhancing the education. The money would also be off limits to anyone involved with running the program so we could be sure those people are in the job for the right reasons. This is all a pipe dream however as the people involved in the rule making process are the ones that benefit most from the current situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
speshl guy posted:Contrary to what you're saying, this level of dedication, when done right, is actually an objectively marketable asset to prospective employers. When done right is the key. You obviously were doing it right. I too was a DIII NCAA athlete during college (swimming) and had a similar workload in both practice schedule and meets. I managed to get a Computer Science degree and have a work study job while doing all that. The key there is though that the swimming was the first thing on the chopping block if time came down to a crunch. If I had a lab to finish up, I was going to be 30 minutes late to practice, not the other way around. That doesn't happen in DI athletics, especially not ones that are very profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Well, the exclusivity period ends after 3 months. I'm not sure I have faith in HBO's dev team to have functioning apps on all platforms before the end of this year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:The Mcdonalds coffee lawsuit is also a lot bigger than just hot coffee. Yeah, the woman had serious burns and McDonalds had been warned several times before that their coffee was above industry standard and dangerously hot. She originally only wanted her medical costs covered, but McDonalds refused so it went to court. The punitive damages were just that, punitive. Their point is to serve as a disincentive to repeat same behavior, not to give the wronged party a payday.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
My bank login, ironically enough, is one of the least capable of affecting my finances. They could see my balances and be able to transfer money between my checking and savings account. That's pretty much it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:I have a family member who works for the IRS and they loving loved the whole bit. Apparently they've been talking about it non stop at work. For some reason, I can't get the accounting firm from Parks and Rec out of my head.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:The patent office is terrible at doing even their basic functions... Much like the IRS segment, they are also a victim of funding cuts. I have a friend that works in the patent office and it's insane. They've basically been under a hiring freeze and the average person there works like 60 hour weeks while still taking home work on the weekend. There isn't enough manpower anymore to fully research these patents before they are approved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
I would say that an area in which the bit falls down is that John just said that "we shouldn't let them do this" without offering ways how to accomplish that. I mean, there's the general idea of 'consume less', but that's not directly going to affect where they make the clothes and then they are even more likely to cut corners when the volume disappears. I think largely why this has disappeared from the public awareness after every incident is the public very well feels powerless to do anything about it. The segment itself said that fewer than 2% of clothes are produced in this country, but it didn't point out what those 2% are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I think IRQ is spot on in saying it would be much less of an issue if vacation and paid leave in the US were handled in a much better way in general. It all comes back to having enough staff to ensure proper smooth operation (without a ton of forced overtime) in the event that not all people are currently there. If you have to account for all your staff being able to take a month off throughout the year without seriously derailing projects or killing the people who are left at the office, extending that leave to 8 weeks for new parents becomes a bit more trivial. That said, I'm genuinely curious as to how in the hell this functions in countries that gives you something like 18 months off. How do you plan staffing and projects around the possibility of people not being there for a year and a half? How does that person remain relevant in the workforce after having that much time off? If you are in any sort of a technical field, 18 months is an eternity. I look back at how things have grown and developed at my current job and someone being absent for 18 months would be nearly on the same level as a new hire as far as knowledge of current operations and technologies goes.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Did he even offer the option to quarantine the pets? It seems like it was just "get them the gently caress out of the country or we're killing them" Yeah, that's the bit that garnered so much attention. He can take a hard line about the issue, but the whole "we're going to kill them in 50 hours" was a bit much. Threaten to seize and quarantine them and send the bill to Depp if they aren't sent back, totally justifiable. Threatening to kill them just serves no purpose and even undercuts the overall message since the consequence is taken to a cartoon level of evil.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Why? All you do is send the message "sneak your animals in Australia, worst that happens is you get caught and go through the same procedure you would of if you'd just done it above board anyways". You actually send that message stronger with the threat of death as most normal well adjusted people would view government threatening to put down a family pet over an issue that has so many other avenues of action as an empty one. Since we don't hear about the Australian government putting down Rover every other day, this is either an extremely edge case or the threat of euthanasia is in fact empty. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 23:12 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
It's not too terribly uncommon to get a bat in your house. Even if you know the bat is there and don't think you got bitten, that's no guarantee that you didn't. Small bat bites need magnification to see and can cause no pain at all. Better yet, rabies can lay dormant in a human for months or even years before you eventually die from it. Are you sure that brush you felt in your hair the last time you walked through a wooded area at night was really a branch? You sure that light touch of the neck was really just a insect when you were sitting around a campfire? Sleep tight. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I think it also has to do with the level of facilities being demanded by the IOC. At every iteration of the games, they have ramped up the technology behind the facilities as well as specialization. Down the line, that leads to higher upkeep costs and fewer uses due to the specialization. The trick is trying to meet requirements while designing the structures so that they can be converted into other use later. But that's likely proving cost prohibitive.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Honestly, aside from the huge opening and closing ceremonies, it doesn't really make a ton of sense why all of the various events even have to be held in the same city anyways. 30 years ago, maybe. But with modern technology, covering the games in various remote locations wouldn't be as difficult as it was before.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Attending the games, on the other hand... That's a good point, but I guess I'm pretty ignorant about how these events are attended. Is it typical for people to go to multiple different events to spectate or do people tend to go to their favorite. Are tickets purchased by event? I guess what I'm getting at is of people don't really go or purchase tickets for more than one event, then it's fine. People just go to different places.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
I could see the pope slam getting a lot of people mad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Didn't see anyone mention. http://www.shfwire.com/comedian-influences-ag-bill-members-congress-say/ Chicken Fucker shaming has at least gotten the bill further than it ever has before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Cinematography in TV has almost caught up to all but the most meticulously planned shots in movies and it seems that sound design is following as well. Short answer is, they don't intend these sound mixes to be listened to from TV speakers or $50 soundbars. They are mixing for 5.1/7.1 (or even higher like the Atmos releases of GOT) and it's likely watching it on anything else is going to produce a subpar result.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Guys what I'm saying is that if sports documentaries that are phenomenal can't move your heart then you have no loving soul. Then I have no soul. I can totally get getting wrapped up in a team sport. I was a high school and college athlete. There were also a few other team actives outside of sports that I was involved with as well. So, I did the whole emotional roller coaster of striving for a goal, winning and losing, catching bad and lucky breaks, and working together and everything. I can also understand getting emotionally involved in a narrative. That said, spectating professional sports does jack loving poo poo for me. Completely and totally nothing. I give less than two shits about what some billionaire owner does with his team of athletic supermen. I cannot get invested in that on an emotional level. At all. It just doesn't work for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The big issue is the US Government giving legitimacy and leeway to their scams by classifying them under a religious organization. By doing so, not only are they tax free money factories, they also don't have to deliver on their product sold. If they weren't religious, they WOULD be illegal as they are literally lying to people in order to take their money. We have laws preventing that sort of thing. Wrapping it around religion just makes it all go away. It's also likely that these televangelists ARE running afoul of what little financial rules that are there, but since the audit rate is so low, they don't get caught.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
There's also the massive VW emissions scandal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Decius posted:I found the Toyota story extremely weak to be honest. Toyota pick-up trucks are all over IS because they are all over areas where you need something extremely reliable. They were and are used by basically every militia/rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist group worldwide for the last 30 years. Of course IS uses them too. The rest of the episode was good. I think the question was how is ISIS able to purchase fleets of NEW trucks. Yes, them having a ton of old hilux pickups is understandable because they are indestructible, but new vehicles are a different animal. Somewhere in their chain, someone is selling willingly and knowingly to terrorists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
IRQ posted:They've taken over major cities, I think they could scrape together a few newer models for their propaganda videos given how common Hiluxes are in third world desert shitholes. Doesn't mean Japan is secretly shipping dozens of brand new trucks to them or something. Which is valid. I think the question just came up for them to verify that is the case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
I like how Seth lost it in the credits with "I think it just died!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Even if you are just filling in someone's vote that would go along party lines, it's still malicious. If the representative can't show up for their job, then their vote shouldn't be counted.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
I would say that by and far the greatest risk is for Sanders voters to not turn up at all on election day because "my pick didn't get nominated, so what's the point?" Democrats, post primary, REALLY need to hitting the idea of participating in the election over any other idea. The only way to lose the general election at that point is if more racist and crazy hits the polls than normal people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
If Apple writes something to disable the auto wipe so they can brute force the password, they may as well just remove the feature from the OS since it is now broken and it'll be drat near impossible to keep it under wraps long term. This is especially true since the precedent will now be set to demand it for any newer versions of the OS which may disable that particular access method. John touched on one thing that must others have overlooked. Nothing is preventing terrorists from using even more encryption. FDE is only the first barrier. Files on the phone may be encrypted further as well as communications. They are relying on the terrorists to be incompetent and not do anything beyond the phone encryption which is pretty laughable. Again, at the end of the day, complying with the order will only end up hurting the end user. They are the ones that will have their phone compromised. They are the ones not taking further action to protect data because the phone is supposed to be handling it. With the processing capability we now have, encryption is cheap and most of the sources for encryption services will be outside the jurisdiction of the US government. It's a lost battle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
No slight intended to anyone here who's said it, but I find the "the laws have to catch up with the technology" to be an evasion. We've already seen where NSA backdoors backfire and seriously compromise the public good (juniper). It's not a matter of lawmaking to fix that issue. If you intentionally engineer a weakness into a technology, it will be exploited by those that it wasn't designed for. Full stop. It also ignores the fact that US law can't regulate every coder out there. You break or backdoor the encryption mechanisms built into these products, then the nefarious types will use technologies that AREN'T built into the device, bypassing US law entirely. So, now you have to regulate what can be installed on the phone and make sure that only approved and properly broken encryption technologies are capable of being used on the OS. Even if you somehow managed to pull that off, the individuals involved can go back to an old-school cipher and purely use the devices as a communications link. The law can't catch up with technology. This is the new normal that we have to live in and adapt to. Law enforcement isn't going to be able to obtain all digital information anymore than they can retrieve a note that was tossed in a fireplace. It's not even a choice at this point. You can whittle away consumer protections all you want, but the tech is always still there, available to be used, in ways that cannot be regulated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:and it's why bad guys currently have no fear of storing evidence that would lock them up for life on a handheld computer that can be confiscated but never deciphered. They will never have fear if they have a inkling of knowing what they are doing. There isn't a law that can be written that can change that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:My point is that... well, here's an example: say you have some mobster in Chicago, and it's Prohibition, and he's boozin' up Cook County something fierce. Get your hands on his ledger, and you can put this bad guy away. Now, put his ledger in a magical box that only the bad guy can open, and let's pretend for a moment that the bad guy doesn't want to open it because he knows that if he does, he'll go to an island prison and eventually get released to die of syphilis some day. Since that isn't something he feels like doing with the rest of his life, he just lets you keep the magical box containing the ledger and... well, you let him go, because you really don't have evidence. You are fundamentally missing the point. So Apple creates a magic key that can only be used under the utmost protection of the law and is perfectly secured so that it cannot be misused. That is the most perfect and best outcome. The key is used to unlock the phone.....only to discover that the 'mobster' downloaded a Russian notebook program with built in encryption or used an encrypted messaging app to arrange his affairs. Square loving one, only this time US law has no ability to compel the makers of the application to backdoor their product. That's the issue. Encryption is not some fantastical technology that very few people understand. It's out there, it's open source, anyone with a tiny bit of computer knowledge can incorporate encryption into their application. You can't undo that. You can chip away at it, you can find flaws (which are then patched), you can increase computational capability which makes bruit force cracking more plausible (and that same computational capability makes stronger encryption possible.) In the end though, the game is lost. You would have to restrict the means to create and install these applications and even if that were possible, the implications of that are too terrifying to contemplate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:The FBI wants Apple to develop a custom iOS version that doesn't have the 10-incorrect-guess lockout feature, so they can push it to the phone and unlock it with an automated tool that brute-forces the PIN. I guess it's a backdoor into the phone itself, not into the encryption per se. Yes, the issue is it defeats a key security measure of the phone. If it is written and used, it will be used for more than just this instance. It will be leaked (either from within sources at Apple or from people who use it.) If Apple does this, they might as well just remove the feature from the OS as it becomes meaningless. The 10 guesses before wipe is integral to the security since there are only so many combinations. It would be trivial for a machine to cycle though all 10000 combinations of a 4 digit pin. Hell, an extremely bored individual could easily do it in a day manually. Retry lockout is key to any authentication mechanism. It takes a computationally easy thing and makes it unfeasible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
It honestly doesn't matter if it's a 4 digit numerical pin or a 6 or even an 8 when you are talking about brute forcing it with a machine with no retry limit/timeout. Even in the most extreme case, it will probably only take minutes if not seconds to try all the combinations. Even 6 digits isn't impossible to do manually. It would probably take a few months, but it could be done. 7 to 8 digits is where it starts to become unfeasible to guess manually, but a machine would have no issues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 17:50
|
|