abhi3

There's an argument to be made that piracy is illegal whereas hate speech (in USA) is not but my point was that Big Internet has no moral compass whereas you seem to want to argue with a strawman of moral equivalency between two unquestionably immoral acts.

All these companies tripping over each other to ban DailyStormer while at the same time they won't take a position against similar sites that are just as unquestionably immoral/illegal as DailyStormer (Torrent sites, ISIS sites). One might be forgiven for thinking that this sudden moral awakening of 'Big Internet' is nothing more than a selfish PR stunt.

OJ Simpson

The leak builds up hype and investor curiosity about the IPO. It's like how visits by politicians to an area are 'leaked' so that the press is there to cover them.

Uhmm. Saving money doesn't mean they have to give it back you know. They could spend on other things like better computers for kids, more staff etc.

I always enable ads on a URL if it asks me to (provided they don't over advertise/have spammy advertisements), kind of already feel shitty about what is effectively stealing content for free so those notices just make me conscious of the guilt.

I wonder how others rationalize blocking ads and not subscribing either but still feeling entitled to access the content.

Rewriting and posting a couple of past comments on the topic >

One thing you learn quickly in law school is that you win cases not on the law but on facts, or rather your characterization of the facts. A good lawyer presenting facts in a way that they get through to a carefully selected jury can win almost any case that's based on a legally plausible claim.

Also, Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties and expose the company to further liability). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend. Every suit has some nuisance value.

Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

> Regardless of whether or not I think Google should have fired him, I'm not sure he really has a case here (but I'm not a lawyer).

I am and one thing you learn quickly in Law school is that you win cases not on the law but on facts, or rather your characterization of the facts. A good lawyer presenting facts in a way that they get through to a carefully selected jury can win almost any case that's based on a legally plausible claim.

Whether there exist biological/psychological differences between sexes that affect career choices is a discussion that needs to be had in an academic setting rather than a political setting as the author sought to do (read the first section).

Secondly, it does not belong in the work place where it is rightly perceived as an aggression by the female coworkers (Telling them the bar was lowered to recruit them, they are inherently inferior to men at the job etc etc.)

Edit: To all the downvoters - I'll be charitable and assume that you are just subconsciously biased and not outright sexists. To see your bias in this situation just try to imagine that 40 years back some employee working at the Google of the day wrote such a manifesto against positive discrimination in favor of African Americans, citing all sorts of statistics claiming how they are lazy, lack commitment etc. Would you guys have wanted to 'hey let's talk about it' as well?

> Only this time, it's a middle-class couple doing the same to one-percenters in one of the most elite neighborhoods in the country.

I can guarantee that a couple having the capacity and sophistication to spend 90k to acquire a private road knowing that their title will certainly be challenged by several far richer families and would require further investment in defending said challenge, are themselves part of the 1%

He could call his attorney have him release a statement right? Are you saying he is being denied access to a lawyer? Because that's a very serious charge and it would very silly of the FBI. IDK if I were arrested I would pray that the police abuse their power and deny me access to an attorney.

In Iran and NK detention without rights is an institutionalized practice. In US if you deny them a phone call immediately, you just threw away your own case.

Why are people in this thread so outraged without knowing any of the facts? For all we know there might be a legitimate charge on which he was arrested.

As per him being untraceable, if he was not read his rights then the FBI just jeopardized their own case. If no one knows where he is, it's more likely that it's what Marcus wants at the moment rather than what the FBI wants.

Actually, the take away from this experiment is not that 'designer babies' are becoming more likely. In fact, when the researchers tried to genetically add synthetic DNA to the male genome it ended up rejecting it and took the copy from the female genome.

>> They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion. That is how this gene-editing process works in other cells in the body, and in mouse embryos, Dr. Mitalipov said. Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. The authors don’t know why it happened.

They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.

In theory, it could be that currently the demand is way higher than the supply, if everyone were able to sell their BCC then the price could crash (assuming everyone would want to sell them as soon as they are able)

And if the price of BCC were to crash to single digit USD in a week it takes for Coinbase to come to a decision then the customers would have lost a fortune.

We need a yelp for journalists.

Why? If you are going to be seeing ads anyway, might as well see better targeted and useful ads that make your face cheer up. Don't get all the cynicism.

My guess is that the public mood is going to shift quickly when it becomes clear how big a loser UK is going to be in any exit deal (or no deal). The conservatives will have to necessarily put the deal to vote in parliament or likely a referendum and post defeat the government will have to resign. EU membership against becomes an issue in the General election and voters elect a party which promises to get UK back in EU.

Go to the bottom of this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation...

>indicating the leader now might desire another 5 year presidency.

Might? The consensus outside China seems to be that another term is a forgone conclusion

You have to pay back debts which can be a problem if you don't have adequate liquid assets. If you can't pay it back your company will go into liquidation where all its assets will be sold to the highest bidders and proceeds will first pay back creditors and then preference share holders, you'll be lucky if there's anything left for you after that as a founder.

Actually, 7.2 Billion is the revenue.

Gross Income is Revenue minus Direct Costs, while Net income is Revenue minus All Costs

> Whenever I read about a software company needing that kind of money though, I often wonder why

Netflix is a software company just as much as Tesla is a software company. You realise Netflix pays billions each year in licensing fees and production costs for originals?

So until you heard its 128 kbps you had no idea? If that's the case then there's no problem with it streaming @128

Well, I should have been more specific. I was referring to cases such as these which play out publicly and not disputes between two neighbors.

One hundred thousand dollar sounds right in the ball park for General damages in usual cases though it'll increase depending on how much publicity the accusation got or if business reputation was harmed. That's just general damages. There's also attorneys fee in two countries and then there are special damages (economic harm caused), and finally, pre and post judgment interest.

Add on top of all that possible punitive damages imposed by a jury. I am a lawyer in India but these are usual common law principles followed everywhere.

Yes, I am a lawyer. Succesful defamation lawsuits usually get multi-million dollar damage awards, most recent case was the Hulk Hogan case against Gawker where 100 million+ damages were awarded and Gawker filed for bankruptcy. Insurance doesn't usually cover liability due to defamatory behavior and in any case, it is rare for individuals to hold such policies.

Now I am not familiar with the US or Japenese Criminal Code but there must be something that criminalizes such behavior, but prosecution is at the discretion of the DA (or in this case where the incident crosses international borders even the US Attorney could prosecute)