• Hi all
    Just a notice, we recently discovered that someone got into a moderator account and started hard deleting a load of key and legacy threads...around 150 threads have been lost dating back to 2007 and some weeks ago so we can't roll the forums back.
    Luckily no personal data could be accessed by this moderator, and we've altered the permissions so hard deleting isn't possible in the future
    Sorry for any inconvenience with this and sorry for any lost posts.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Official News Thread - Misc To Replace CNN

Queequeg

Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/nyregion/christie-aide-tied-to-bridge-lane-closings.html

What a psycho. He is full of BS claiming he was unaware of the political ramifications of the closures until sunday. But it really takes almost a sociopath to close lanes in possibly the busiest bridge in the world and hold up school buses, people going to their jobs, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, EMS, etc for FOUR days. I was actually largely ambivalent towards him before this because he did a decent job as governor despite being a bully but now I have complete and utter contempt for him. And he had no desire to get to the bottom of this or fire anyone until these emails and text messages came out. Such petty tyranny.
 

Kutie Pie

"It is my destiny."
Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

CNN said:
The data breach at Target was significantly broader than originally reported: The company said Friday that 70 million customers had information such as their name, address, phone number and e-mail address hacked in the breach.

Target said the personal data stolen could affect its past shoppers -- not just those who have visited the store recently.

The breach occurred in the weeks following Thanksgiving when as many as 40 million customers may have also had credit or debit card information stolen. A Target spokesperson said there may be overlap between the two groups, but they do not currently know the extent.

This is an embarrassment to the company, and I'm sure they fired someone who opened that e-mail that released the malware (or they fired someone who didn't open that e-mail just so they can have someone to fire), but that doesn't matter anymore, apparently. My family and I don't shop at Target, but I know other people who go there a lot, and I can only imagine they're horrified by it.

The article also goes to say that they're closing some stores in May because of their financial performance, but something tells me it might just go downhill from there. Honestly, would you really shop again at a place that got hacked and had your information stolen even though you're compromised? But that's just me.

The top comment in the comment section on this article makes me laugh, though:

"1. The breach wasn't that bad
2. Ok they might have gotten your credit card numbers but they were encrypted
3. Ok they might have gotten your pin numbers but they were encrypted
4. Ok the breach hit 40 million customers but we have it under control
5. Ok the breach hit 70 million customers but we have it under control
6. Ok they might have your de-crypted credit card numbers but we have it under control
7. Ok they might have your de-crypted pin numbers but we're pretty sure we have it under control.
8. Ok they actually hit every known Target customer in our database and we might have it under control.
9. We're pretty sure we don't have it under control, sorry.
10. We're really sorry, please don't leave us."
 

Kutie Pie

"It is my destiny."
Nice one Justin, guess Cocaine was missing on your achievements list

You forgot the link to the story.

L.A. Times said:
Detectives searching Justin Bieber's Calabasas mansion Tuesday during an investigation into an egging case arrested one of the singer's associates on felony drug charges after cocaine was found in plain view.

L.A. County sheriff's investigators did not immediately identify who was arrested but said it was not Bieber. Lt. Dave Thompson said the drug they found was cocaine.

"The cocaine I believe was in plain view of the deputies when they were looking for the other evidence," he said in a news conference following the arrest.

Worst part is Bieber himself was not arrested. Um, shouldn't he be held accountable for having cocaine in his house even if it's not his? You know, other famous celebrities get arrested all the time for this crap, how come he got off? Afraid he's too "pretty for prison" or something?
 

Poke Trainer J

Well-Known Member
U.S. Court of Appeals Threatens Internet Freedom:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/court-kills-net-neutrality/

David Kravets said:
A federal appeals court today nullified key provisions of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, opening the door to a curated approach to internet delivery that allows broadband providers to block content or applications as they see fit.

The 3-0 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit guts much of a 2010 Federal Communications Commission order, in a challenge brought by Verizon. The nation’s number one mobile provider successfully argued that the regulatory agency overstepped its authority because it issued the rules in 2010 without classifying broadband providers as common carriers, like rank-and-file telcos.

While it’s a nuanced legal argument, the effects are huge.

Here’s the rules that were negated:

*Wireline or fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.

*Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. That rule, however, does not apply to wireless services.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is mulling whether to continue the litigation. His options include asking the court to rehear it with the same three judges or with a larger, en banc panel, or going directly to the Supreme Court.

“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal,” Wheeler said, “to ensure that these networks on which the internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

If the decision stands, broadband providers are likely to implement pay-to-play plans like the one AT&T announced last week — plans that many said violated, at a minimum, the spirit of net neutrality.

The second largest mobile provider is taking advantage of the data caps it imposes on subscribers by letting companies sponsor the bandwidth their wares use. The consumer who enjoys those sponsored services will not have that broadband count against their monthly data allotment. Sponsorship is not mandatory — if a company doesn’t pay AT&T, the bandwidth will count against the user’s cap as always.

However, under today’s ruling, AT&T conceivably could demand that companies like Netflix or others pay to be carried on their pipes.

The decision could also be a boon for anti-piracy measures. The providers would be free to throttle BitTorrent traffic or to block file-sharing sites altogether.

“Without high-level rules of the road, or other replacement high-level rules, the broadband carriers are free to discriminate and block content from consumers,” Chris Lewis, a vice president at digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a telephone interview.

The appeals court ruled that the regulations it nullified are akin to those assigned to “common carriers,” like brick-and-mortar telephone services, which are heavily regulated, from everything including rates to interconnections.

“Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order,” the appeals court wrote.

Adding broadband providers into the common carrier legal thicket would give the FCC the power to reinstate the regulations. But doing so could open the door to regulating the internet in ways that might hamper its progress by mandating rates, interconnectedness and perhaps even speeds.

Free Press president Craig Aaron said under today’s ruling “broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into something that looks like cable TV. They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute hailed the decision, saying “net neutrality is another example of over regulation that flies in the face of every proper tenet of infrastructure wealth creation and expansion of free speech and consumer welfare.”

For what it’s worth, the appeals court left intact a net-neutrality rule requiring wireless and wireline broadband providers to disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their services.

In other words the U.S. Government can now gouge us by making different tier plans, block certain websites unless you pay a certain amount of money through digital microtransactions, and If they consider a website unethical which is what Net Neutrality protected against before the recent court ruling they can shut it down. For example If YouTube has copywritten content they can just block it without the use of flagging it or by Content ID under Google's consent.

What the U.S. Court of Appeals did was what the U.S. Government always does by giving corporations what they want. Wanna use Netflix or Hulu you're gonna have to get our $250 plan because that's alot of bandwidth where as with these Net Neutrality rules that were set in place they can't do that. There were federal laws set forth by the FCC to protect the consumer but it's the U.S. Government that was bought out by corporations, Virizon Wireless probably lobbied them when they needed to lobby and now those rules are gone.

So now you want Hulu? Gonna need more money for that. When they see a website even If the website has been brought to court and isn't doing anything illegal they're angry at YouTube because they stole their "TV Thunder" which as you can already tell nowadays with the oversaturation of reality TV shows such as Duck Dynasty and Pawn Stars where nobody gives a crap about paying for TV especially for HBO and On Demand. YouTube's got alot of copywritten content as well as other video-sharing websites like DailyMotion and Blip.tv and since these corporations are jerks they don't want their competition since they want to go back to the old status quo when we didn't have Internet.

Hopefully it won't happen but If ISP's (Internet Service Providers) and/or Cable Providers wanted to they can do it now since there's no regulations holding them back from doing so and the U.S. Government is no longer watching over them. These corporations know that Old Media/Legacy Media is dying but instead of innovating they want to monopolize the market in their favor, once again the American Government proves that it isn't for the people it's for the corporations that bought them out and as long money is in politics and doesn't become illegal in politics then history is going to keep repeating itself.

The Internet is supposed to be a place for free speech, innovation, expression, and knowledge that isn't dictated by money and corruption in society although small businesses making money through Facebook is understandable. Here's what you can do to help by signing these petitions and spreading the word on Facebook, Twitter, and other websites on the web:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...y-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P

http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_FCC_court_decision2/

http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

http://www.fcc.gov/

http://www.avaaz.org/en/internet_apocalypse_loc/?bbUepcb&v=34949
 
Last edited:

Slowy

New and Improved
Well, that's horrible! How low can one get before one decides to have gone too far? Personally, I think this was intentional; people are easier to control with that move. Normally, I'm silent on these issues (I might talk with somebody or two in privacy), but this is disgusting! (Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if much of the public supports and/or defends it.) As soon as I learn how, I might either sign one of those petitions or start my own. Imagine how the Founding Fathers would've felt about this Internet-controlling monstrosity! I hope against hope that they change up and put a stop to this, as this is blatantly greed and the urge to rule with an iron fist clouding up the thinking. That is all for now.
 

LDSman

Banned
The internet wasn't set up for free speech or any of the other items mentioned. That's a side effect of people thinking outside the box.
You've got an interesting view of what the internet is.

The Founding Fathers would probably say that any business is not required to provide you with a venue for your speech. They'd probably want to know why you expect to buy a set of dictionaries or huge paintings, movies for the price of a newspaper? Do you demand that stores carry every single book or movie ever made?
 

Slowy

New and Improved
LDSman, where did I mention that it was? Where was it put down that one can't exist without the other? Where did the idea that such a venue wasn't around already come from? (If that was directed towards someone else (which I doubt), please feel free to ignore these questions.)
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Banned
Slowy, the first statement was not directed at you as you did not mentioned what the internet was for at all. Poke trainer J did.

The second statement was directed at you as you did mention the Founding Fathers.
 

Slowy

New and Improved
1. So that one was towards Poke Trainer J (who happens to be the one to bring it to attention here first), huh? Very well, never mind that one, then.
2. I don't expect to, as that would be unrealistic at best. On the other hand, the higher prices are even more reason to use such materials wisely and take good care of them. I personally don't believe computers are inherently good or evil. Rather, it's according to the use thereof. Since it's such a widespread and powerful form of media and technology, it stands to reason that it can be used for the greater good more than other resources prior to its existence; it can, though, also be corrupted. Ruling against the public and in favor of corporations (which really benefit from this), legal or not, is immoral, serving the greedy and power-hungry. A business should never infringe on the rights of the citizens of this country. The aforementioned venue, I believe, is also just a bonus for those wishing to speak out, but especially for those who can't (debatably versus those who won't). I'll be honest, this is why I won't be seen debating much, if at all. While I'm relatively thick-skinned (though not exceptionally so), I'm generally not the greatest thinker I've ever known, let alone in the world; in addition, I usually have to have the info right in front of me if I'm to be able to debate at a remotely competent level (except for, say, music, which I can rant about for hours if allowed), and I can get a bit on the passionate side. With that noted, you have been pretty civil about the whole thing with me so far, and I thank you for it. I just want you to understand where I'm really coming from, that's all.
 

TheSirPeras

The end of an era
You forgot the link to the story.

Worst part is Bieber himself was not arrested. Um, shouldn't he be held accountable for having cocaine in his house even if it's not his? You know, other famous celebrities get arrested all the time for this crap, how come he got off? Afraid he's too "pretty for prison" or something?

Ups sorry, I don't come here often so I didn't even know we needed a link, should have read the rules.

Anyways, your problem has been solved :D http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/showbiz/justin-bieber-arrest/ JUSTIN STRIKES AGAIN, THIS TIME ON DRUNK DRIVING!! Damn :D
 

Kutie Pie

"It is my destiny."
Ups sorry, I don't come here often so I didn't even know we needed a link, should have read the rules.

Anyways, your problem has been solved :D http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/showbiz/justin-bieber-arrest/ JUSTIN STRIKES AGAIN, THIS TIME ON DRUNK DRIVING!! Damn :D

It's okay, nothing against you, though you also need to have a quote from the article as well.

CNN said:
Justin Bieber was charged with drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license after police saw the pop star street racing early Thursday morning, Miami Beach police said.

"What the f*** did I do? Why did you stop me?" Bieber asked the police officer who pulled him over just after 4 a.m., according to the arrest report.

The singer, dressed in an orange jail uniform, stood silently with his lips sometimes pursed as attorney Roy Black represented him in the hearing.

But it's about damn time that punk got in trouble with the law. Look at that dumbass shit-eating grin he's got going on in his mugshot, what a douche. Unfortunately, because he's a celebrity, he's just going to get a slap on the wrist and be free to go do his thing again and be a "role-model" for the kids. Though hopefully the police are smarter than this and really throw the book at him, especially because he's underage. "But I'm Canadian, I'm of legal age!" is not going to fly here in the States.

You gonna be a thug, you gonna live like a thug. Karma, bitch. Say "hi" to Lindsey Lohan while you're at it, she's gonna need a druggie buddy.
 

LDSman

Banned
1. So that one was towards Poke Trainer J (who happens to be the one to bring it to attention here first), huh? Very well, never mind that one, then.
You can respond to this if you wish.

2. I don't expect to, as that would be unrealistic at best. On the other hand, the higher prices are even more reason to use such materials wisely and take good care of them. I personally don't believe computers are inherently good or evil. Rather, it's according to the use thereof. Since it's such a widespread and powerful form of media and technology, it stands to reason that it can be used for the greater good more than other resources prior to its existence; it can, though, also be corrupted.[/QUOTE]True. We have catalogs of artwork available to anyone to see along with catalogs of porn for anybody to see.

Ruling against the public and in favor of corporations (which really benefit from this), legal or not, is immoral, serving the greedy and power-hungry. A business should never infringe on the rights of the citizens of this country.
I don't buy into the belief that anything a corporation does is is immoral. Businesses are the ones that maintain the 'net, the servers, upgrade the tech and make it available to the public. Unlimited or free access to the 'net is not a right.

The aforementioned venue, I believe, is also just a bonus for those wishing to speak out, but especially for those who can't (debatably versus those who won't).
Doe you mean speaking out anonymously? I do have some issues with the whole anon internet deal. Too many people hide behind their internet names and attack others.
I'll be honest, this is why I won't be seen debating much, if at all. While I'm relatively thick-skinned (though not exceptionally so), I'm generally not the greatest thinker I've ever known, let alone in the world; in addition, I usually have to have the info right in front of me if I'm to be able to debate at a remotely competent level (except for, say, music, which I can rant about for hours if allowed), and I can get a bit on the passionate side.
I like being able to access reference material easily as well. Especially if I can prove someone wrong.

With that noted, you have been pretty civil about the whole thing with me so far, and I thank you for it. I just want you to understand where I'm really coming from, that's all.

No problem.
 

Slowy

New and Improved
1. No thanks; it's not really any of my business.
2. a. At first, I thought it was part of a debate, but then saw yours and realized you agree on the first part. (Unless it's meant to be ironic or something else...) b. I don't either, to be honest. Some may claim that money is the root of all evil, but I believe the love thereof is; it seems the rich want to get richer, the poor are really desperate to the point of being willing to do whatever for, well you can guess, and we sadly live in a world in which money equals power. With that said, I will look into it; if there's one thing I understand about debates, they allow for both sides to make their respective cases and civilly "argue" them whilst learning from each other as well as from third parties (I think). c. Frankly, I think doing it anonymously is taking it a bit too far. When making a stand, wouldn't you wish to announce to the world that you're sticking with what you believe is right and opposing what you feel is wrong? d. The first half is true of me also, but I'm more into learning new things and going for grasping and understanding than trying to "prove someone wrong." I feel that I'm in the wrong to do otherwise, even if I'm proven to be correct; I'm more mild mannered (except on the occasional aforementioned). That leads to...e. I think (and hope) we can both learn from each other when all is said and done, and I might be ranting a bit too much.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Attempt to Ban JW.ORG in Russia Fails

Jehovah’s Witnesses won a major court victory today when an appellate court reversed an earlier ruling by a lower court that banned jw.org, the official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses, throughout Russia. The Regional Court of Tver conducted a new trial, which concluded that the decision of the Tsentralniy District Court on August 7, 2013, was unjustified, since there was no legal reason to ban the site. “Witnesses around the world are rejoicing at this victory,” states J. R. Brown, a spokesman at the Witnesses’ world headquarters. “Thanks to this legal victory, all citizens of Russia will continue to have access to this excellent Bible-education website.”

Yet another Legal Victory for Jehovah's Witnesses.
 

Jacobthepokemonfreak

Fly it all away!
King (makers of Candy crush) have now copyrighted the words 'Candy' and 'Saga' and filed hypocritical lawsuits against the makers of The Banner Saga and All Candy casino Slots.

Hypocritical? BECAUSE THEY ALSO TAKEN DOWN THE GAME 'SCAMPERGHOST' for which they made a direct clone of called 'Pac-Avoid'. Read about that here:
http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied
http://www.gemfruit.com/articles/king-candy-crushes-developers-saga
http://kotaku.com/candy-crush-makers-take-down-a-game-accused-of-being-a-1508917924

King then took down their verison for 'avoidance of doubt' and shifted the blame to the 3rd party developers they had hired and lied to. THIS IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH BEHAVIOUR.
It's also coming from a company whose biggest hit is a candy-covered ripoff of bejeweled.

Read more about the ongoing saga in these links:

http://kotaku.com/candy-crush-thinks-it-owns-the-word-candy-1505420069
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugge...kers-want-trademark-word-candy-195724320.html
http://kotaku.com/candy-crush-saga-makers-go-after-the-banner-saga-for-1506188958
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/01/24/king-com-takes-down-cloned-game.aspx
 
Last edited:

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
o_O I thought it was illegal to copyright words...

And the company definitely is a GIANT hypocrite. It blatantly ripped off of games before, like Pac-Man and others. Why should they even have the ability to copyright anything like that, given their past behavior?

On that same note, why should ANY company be allowed to do that? I remember Facebook trying to copyright the words, "Face" and "Book" awhile back. That was just downright ludicrous.

http://gizmodo.com/5623151/facebook-is-trying-to-register-the-word-face-as-a-trademark

Disclaimer: from gizmodo.com


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/facebook-book-trademark/

Disclaimer: from wired.com

“You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.”

Nice and ironic on that one... since Pokémon contains that word. Book and Wall are words people use as well... not to mention the latter is part of buildings.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
o_O I thought it was illegal to copyright words...

And the company definitely is a GIANT hypocrite. It blatantly ripped off of games before, like Pac-Man and others. Why should they even have the ability to copyright anything like that, given their past behavior?

On that same note, why should ANY company be allowed to do that? I remember Facebook trying to copyright the words, "Face" and "Book" awhile back. That was just downright ludicrous.

http://gizmodo.com/5623151/facebook-is-trying-to-register-the-word-face-as-a-trademark

Disclaimer: from gizmodo.com


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/facebook-book-trademark/

Disclaimer: from wired.com



Nice and ironic on that one... since Pokémon contains that word. Book and Wall are words people use as well... not to mention the latter is part of buildings.

Wow, that's just crazy. But I think the message on wiffle ball bats is worse: http://www.geekosystem.com/wiffle-ball-trademark-yellow/#fref
The reason I found out about this article is because I got one of these bats a while back and I noticed the rather odd message on it. Then I found this article XD
 
Last edited:
Top