Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C –  concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.

According to the London Times:

 Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

and

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

Note the disingenuousness here.

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.

That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

But this is not, unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street. ManBearPig has been scotched but by no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.

This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.

Paul Homewood has their number:

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that’s the main thing.

Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”

Comcast, AT&T Are Abusing Minority Groups To Support Killing Net Neutrality

For years, I’ve noted how one of the greasier lobbying tactics in telecom is the use of minority groups to provide the illusion of broad support for what’s often awful policy. Such groups are given cash for a shiny new event center in exchange for parroting any policy position that comes across their desks, even if it dramatically undermines their constituents. As a result, we’ve shown how time and time again you’ll see minority coalitions like the “Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership” supporting awful mergers or opposing consumer-centric policies like more cable box competition or net neutrality.

And it’s not just minority groups. A wide variety of groups take telecom cash to repeat whatever they’re told, whether it’s rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association or even “balloonists.” Some of these groups are created specifically for this purpose. Other times, these groups are “co-opted” without understanding what they’re actually supporting. The goal overall is simple: to create the illusion of broad support for bad ideas the actual public — minority or otherwise — would oppose.

With the debate over net neutrality heating up once again, ISPs have again dusted off this tried and true tactic to mislead the press, public, and politicians. As a result, we’re seeing numerous civil rights groups that are more than happy to let giant corporations like AT&T and Comcast rent their identity for the weekend. This week, a coalition of such groups, including the NAACP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and the National Urban League, fired off a letter urging Senators to move quickly to craft “a permanent statutory solution” to “solve” net neutrality once and for all:

The issue of network neutrality and the importance of a free and open internet has been a political football. Every time the political pendulum swings, this policy debate becomes difficult, convoluted, and even condescending. One thing is crystal clear: The internet should be open and accessible.

For this reason, we support a permanent statutory solution that enshrines the basic open internet principles into law. These core principles are not controversial and should not be subject to endless litigation, regulation, and reconsideration. A statute locking in net neutrality would protect net neutrality no matter how the political winds blow.

A statutory approach also avoids the jurisdictional and classification problems that plagued the last FCC. The goal should be improvement, deployment, and adoption of the high speed networks that all Americans deserve. Legislation will provide certainty to consumers and industry for the foreseeable future.

On the surface this sounds perfectly reasonable. Until you understand what’s actually happening in telecom policy and the fight for net neutrality right now.

While there’s no debate that a Congress-made net neutrality law would be the ideal solution, you may have noticed that Congress is so awash in telecom campaign contributions that crafting a law not riddled with fatal loopholes has been impossible. As a result, the best path forward for those that actually care about net neutrality is to leave the existing rules and the FCC’s Title II authority in place (which is what these groups should be advocating for).

But, since that’s not what ISPs want, they’re pushing Congress — and their armies of dollar-per-holler policy tendrils — to push for a new law, one that will claim to “solve” net neutrality but will actually work to kill it through “compromise.”

The FCC technically could walk back net neutrality via the rulemaking process, but it would require another public open comment period. And since the 4 million comments made the last go-round broke FCC records, ISPs aren’t keen on revisiting this strategy. So the strategy is this: craft a new Communications Act rewrite or other law professing to codify net neutrality into law, but bury it with so many loopholes as to make it net neutrality protection in name only. When net neutrality supporting Senators in Congress fail to come to the table, they’ll be derided as being unwilling to compromise for the good of the people.

But it’s not really a compromise when the end product is worse than doing nothing (read: leaving the popular rules alone).

Once you understand all of that, it becomes clearer how the broadband industry is using these groups to create bogus support for a new, much weaker net neutrality law to “avoid the jurisdictional and classification problems that plagued the last FCC.” And if you follow the money behind this week’s letter, you’ll find that the group that coordinated it has a long, proud history of taking money from telecom companies, in exchange for coordinating civil rights group support for everything from the the latest megamerger to the assault on net neutrality:

Telecom issues, however, are a particular specialty. Last week’s letter was organized by the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council (MMTC), a group funded by the telecom industry that has previously encouraged civil rights groups to oppose net neutrality. MMTC in previous years reported receiving about a third of its budget from industry-sponsored events; its annual summit, which was held last week, was made possible by $100,000 sponsorships from Comcast and AT&T, as well as a $75,000 sponsorships from Charter Communications and Verizon.

This tactic has been so successful for Comcast, the company actually renamed their top lobbyist, David Cohen, the company’s “Chief Diversity Officer.” And while Comcast does indeed occasionally fund groups and events that put the needed cash and services to good work, you’re supposed to ignore the fact that Comcast lobbyists are actively working to undermine the minority communities the company claims to be helping with their other hand. Whenever I point this out, Comcast yells at me for calling Cohen a lobbyist.

We’ve been talking about this strategy for more than a decade now and nothing really seems to change. Since this cozy quid pro quo isn’t technically illegal, and is never put into writing, groups accused by reporters of selling their constituents down river either don’t respond to requests for comment (as was the case in The Intercept’s latest report on this subject), or they become breathlessly indignant at the very idea their integrity could be questioned. All the while, these groups’ constituents are usually entirely unaware they’re being used as political props — to actively undermine our collective best interests.

Equifax Hired a Music Major(aka a Garbage Degree) as Chief Security Officer

When Congress hauls in Equifax CEO Richard Smith to grill him, it can start by asking why he put someone with degrees in music in charge of the company’s data security: those who managed to pull up Susan Mauldin’s LinkedIn page before it was altered and taken down were surprised to find that Equifax’s CSO had an amusing but rather irrelevant set of qualifications. Remember, it’s not what you know, but who you know…

Equifax “Chief Security Officer” Susan Mauldin has a bachelor’s degree and a master of fine arts degree in music composition from the University of Georgia. Her LinkedIn professional profile lists no education related to technology or security. This is the person who was in charge of keeping your personal and financial data safe — and whose apparent failings have put 143 million of us at risk from identity theft and fraud. It was revealed this week that the massive data breach came due to a software vulnerability that was known about, and should have been patched, months earlier.

If you were pirating in the early 2000’s, the NSA probably knows.

 

A NEW CACHE of Edward Snowden documents have revealed that the NSA was actively monitoring file-sharing networks more than 12 years ago. 

According to a report at The Intercept, the NSA formed a research group dedicated to studying peer-to-peer internet traffic, via apps including LimeWire, eDonkey, Kazaa and BitTorrent, to see if it could find valuable intelligence by monitoring such activity.

“One question that naturally arises after identifying file-sharing traffic is whether or not there is anything of intelligence value in this traffic,” the NSA document begins.

“By searching our collection databases, it is clear that many targets are using popular file sharing applications; but if they are merely sharing the latest release of their favourite pop star, this traffic is of dubious value (no offence to Britney Spears intended).”

The document goes onto reveal that the NSA successfully cracked the encryption of at least two of these file-sharing sites – Kazaa and eDonkey – which gave it access to users’ email addresses, country codes, names, the location of the downloaded files and a list of recent searches.” 

“We have developed the capability to decrypt and decode both Kazaa and eDonkey traffic to determine which files are being shared, and what queries are being performed,” the researcher wrote.

 

This also the NSA the ability to look deeper into user behaviour, which lead to the discovery that some were using P2P systems to share files that weren’t “simply harmless music and movie files.”

“With more widespread adoption, these tools will allow us to regularly assimilate data which previously had been passed over; giving us a more complete picture of our targets and their activities,” the document adds.

As noted by The Intercept, Kazaa shut down in 2012, but the eDonkey network – although not as popular as it once was – is still active, and still uses “the same vulnerable encryption it did in 2004.”

A representative of the eMule developer team told the website: “There is no doubt the NSA could spy on the traffic if they wanted to,” adding that “preventing this was not the aim of the protocol encryption (and not much of an issue back then in the old days when this feature was coded).”

The newly-surfaced document reveals that the NSA, along with the UK’s GCHQ, went on to hack BitTorrent and other torrent sites. In one case, the GCHQ shared information about a pedophile ring with London’s Met police and could search out users sharing files with “jihad” in the filename on eMule, in another instance.

A GCHQ spokesperson said to The Intercept: “All of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorized, necessary, and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

“All our operational processes rigorously support this position. In addition, the UK’s interception regime is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Verizon Disconnecting “Unprofitable” Users

Verizon often touts its mobile network as the most reliable and largest network in the United States, but 8,500 customers across 13 states have been given the boot by Big Red. Verizon says that these rural customers roaming charges cost the carrier tons and make continuing to support some 19,000 lines is unprofitable for the carrier.

States Affected by Verizon’s Roaming Cut-Off

  • Alaska
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Indiana
  • Kentucky
  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • North Carolina
  • Oklahoma
  • Utah
  • Wisconsin

Verizon said it sent notices of disconnection to the affected customers this month and those customers will have until October 17th to find new mobile service. Verizon says that’s plenty of time for people to find new networks as the customers generate more in roaming charges than they generate income for Verizon.

“These customers live outside of areas where Verizon operates our own network. Many of the affected consumer lines use a substantial amount of data while roaming on other providers’ networks and the roaming costs generated by these lines exceed what these consumers pay us each month.”

The interesting part of this story is that Verizon’s letter to customers doesn’t provide any way for them to stick with Verizon by reducing their data use. The letter simply states the October 17 cut-off period. One affected customer contacted Ars Technica and said her family only used 50GB across 4 lines, which is well below the 22GB cut-off.

Verizon maintains that these customers are getting the boot because of their roaming charges, but also fails to mention that it advertised its own unlimited plans directly to these rural customers in order to entice them to get plans. Now that the cost has become more than Verizon can bare, they’re giving those customers the boot.

What do you think, is this false advertising?

 

Sources:

Verizon Wireless’ Great Rural Purge: Tens of Thousands Losing Cell Service

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/verizon-kicks-8500-rural-customers-off-network-for-using-roaming-data/

Verizon Wireless terminating service for 2,000 cellphone customers in Washington County

The Collapse of Reddit.

1) The first thing they did was take away r/reddit.com.

This took away the only tool for communicating with reddit about reddit. If you had any concerns about the website as a whole, you could address them through r/reddit. Taking that away was the first step.

2) The power now resided in individual subreddits, obviously the most popular ones. There was a power grab to become moderators of these subreddits.

I remember as the upcoming election loomed, all of a sudden, r/circlejerk (one of the old default subreddits) became completely obsessed with bashing Ron Paul. It seemed to have been a bit orchestrated, and NOT by some kids trying to be funny. Also, it coincided perfectly with this highly suspicious campaign to filter him out of the election.

3) Once the default subreddits were controlled, drastic changes began to occur. I remember when r/IAma was open to anyone and the popularity was decided by voting. Now it is nothing more than a cheap place for celebrities to whore out their products and you need to be “approved”. Someone named Victoria is involved and how does that makes any sense whatsoever? Celebrities have entire teams of branding/PR/social media teams that work for them. Why do they need to be at reddit HQ and/or required to have a reddit rep? Because these AMA’s are extremely organized and sponsored with money.

There are plenty of subreddits that are now covertly controlled. Check out these posts which were pushed into r/undelete for identifying a list of keywords banned from r/technology.

4) The appearance of shills soon became VERY apparent.

All of a sudden new accounts started popping up out of nowhere. Cue the birth of r/HailCorporate. “Feel good” military posts started appearing, like a soldier coming home to his dog. New users entered AMA’s to lob softball questions “Mr Burns, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train, how does it feel to be so popular?” From brand new accounts that never posted again.

Eglin Air Force Base = Reddit’s most addicted city! I would hate to be the poor reddit intern who got fired that day! “Didn’t you read the memo Billy. US military bases are never to be included in our yearly stats!!!” Anyone who tries to convince you that shills don’t exist is either grossly uninformed or a liar. Protip: the big political subreddits can’t seem to keep the seal on the circlejerk during weekends, almost as if an entire team of manipulators is suddenly on weekend hours.

5) Now we have blatant censorship on r/newsr/worldnews etc… saying that X site is not allowed. What ever happened to letting people vote on the content of this website? Trash tabloids constantly go viral on political subreddits due to sensationalized headlines and the fact that most Americans are unaware of different overseas publications.

Not to mention the fact that default subreddit rules are now completely refined, sophisticated and purposely worded to allow maximum mod-interpretation. Honestly, someone with a law degree would be proud.

Major politically-charged subreddits now insist on exact titles or quotes because that stops users from being able to post the important point summary of the article as the title . Using only official titles from only approved media has turned reddit into mainstream media.

6) Speaking of voting, they changed that too.

We now have an entirely new way to view upvote/downvote scores. A user used to be able to see their score. But now, everything is fuzzed. For example, if you made a semi-controversial comment before, but many people agreed, you may have a score like (47/45), leaving you with a -2 next to the comment. Now you just get a -2 and nobody knows if anyone agreed with you.

7) Hey guise, us nerds who run reddit have decided to shuffle all of the front-page subreddits, tee-hee we are so random ‿^

No more r/circlejerk, that pesky subreddit hits too close to home. Lets add 2X to the mix, (even though they wanted to remain an anonymous sub), fuck them, we need to show our shareholders we represent the female demographic. Lets also add a bunch of subs that we can use to share propaganda like r/nottheonion. And speaking of the female demographic and “gender discrimination” being represented, that happened around the time this person took over as CEO of reddit.

8) You are posting too much, please wait…

It now doesn’t matter if you have confirmed your email, or been posting on this site for years. If you anger the wrong mod/admin or your posts aren’t doing “well”, then you get benched.

Or you can always just have your comments deleted. You will not even know your comment is deleted. You will still see it. Only you. The only way to know is to be inherently suspicious, and sign out of your account after clicking on the permalink of the comment.

A sneaky tactic, but hey, at least it is only your comment and not your whole account. Isn’t it great that we have shadow-banning on a website that claims to support free speech.

9) Reddit is not a meritocracy.

tl;dr: Your votes do not matter. The front page is not decided on merit. Different subs are given different algorithms. There is a behind the scene ranking system that gives certain content a “head-start”. Subreddits such as r/conspiracy and r/the_donald,have learned that if they don’t like our sub, then we are banished from the front page, forever. 

10) The arrival and subsequent take over of r/undelete. Due to the now rampant censorship on the site, users took it into their own hands to bring the truth into the light. They created a part of reddit where users could see what was being deleted. Nope.

11) Now we are seeing a new site-wide trend that is designed to make it even harder to call out shills. Which is interesting considering that nobody seems to care when the accusations are sponsored by the mob: “This guy is a Putin-bot! Everyone must think the exact same way about complex geopolitical events.”

12) All of the proper “checks and balances” are now in place.

R/worldnews has become the ultimate modern-day version of the Two-Minutes Hate from George Orwell’s 1984: a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting the Party’s enemies and express their hatred for them.

But when we really want to drive a point home, the entire front-page gets in on the action!!! Look what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Boston Bombing, while users were pooling resources, the website was DDos attacked to stop the momentum. Good thing to, since moments later, our honest government said “Hey everybody, these two guys did it!” For arguments sake, despite anything that followed, it should be extremely alarming that millions of people suddenly decided they were guilty based on nothing more than a picture, the government’s word, and the manufactured consensus of their peers. I was on reddit in the exact moment the shift happened and NOBODY could tell me why they suddenly believed, without any other evidence, that two people attending the marathon with a circle around them was evidence of guilt. And I was gang-downvoted every time I asked.

And speaking of the BB, reddit will apparently never live down the fact that someone was wrongly accused. Why should a community be demonized for aggregating information and doing something that has proven to be successful in 90% of cases, particularly disasters? Why? Because the government can’t have people doing their own detective work, that would make their cover-ups way more difficult.

13) Online guerrilla tactics.

When reddit changed the voting system and people were on their last nerve with this site, a place called Whoaverse (now https://voat.co/) became popular overnight. It is basically a reddit clone and at the time was run by one guy. He was happy about the surge but mentioned it was going to be hard to keep up with, but was committed to making it happen. Guess what happened next?

Did you guess: “Thousands of targeted spam attacks to overload and destroy the website”? Then congrats, you now understand how far these fucks are willing to go to keep the herd in their pen. Hijacking a cool brand and using it’s facade to conduct propaganda games is extremely profitable, just ask VICE. Super secret link. And once you have the customer, it costs much less to keep them than to acquire new ones. So we are seeing online guerrilla tactics designed to destroy the competition by any means.

…………………………………….

It wasn’t always like this. A few years ago, there were just as many disagreements and differences of opinion on reddit, but they were REAL. And the site was still a democracy. People voted and things swung from side to side, everybody learned in the end.

Now we have a completely one-sided mess that pretends to be democratic but is quickly becoming the Fox News/CNN of the internet. They designed a system that would take advantage of the Eternal September syndrome and this manipulation has encouraged the retard masses to become their useful idiots.

I believe this can essentially be boiled down to not just greed, but controlling and manipulating the information that the millions of people see on a daily basis. Reddit gets billions of views. Manufactured consensus is very real and doing it through social media is the gold standard because people are hard-wired to value the opinions of their peers.

The people who run reddit are not the “cool bloggers” they try to portray themselves as. There is a head running things, and it is sinister and they are making A LOT of money, and have A LOT of power, and A LOT of influence.

And they know it. You should too.

Is the iPhone-X’s Face-Unlock a violation of Privacy?

On Tuesday, the world watched as Apple unveiled their tenth-anniversary special edition iPhone, the iPhone X. While iPhone boasts a newer more secure phone—using its patented new facial recognition system—internet sleuths were quick to point out the ominous implications behind the new tech.

As Wired reports, the iPhoneX replaces the iconic “home” button, featured on all previous versions, with a new “TrueDepth camera system.” A little black bar at the top of the phone contains several sensors, cameras, and even a dot projector that all work together to create a mathematical 3D model of the owner’s face.

A secure phone, at this moment, is the only thing that can protect the documented evidence of criminal behavior. Luckily—for the police—if you have a new iPhone X, all they theoretically need to do is to handcuff you and point it at your face. Now they have access to all of your private information. 

Had his phone been locked and had the security guard resisted alleged police pressure to confiscate his phone, evidence of a police murder may still exist. However, if he had an iPhone X, even if he would’ve resisted, they need only point it at his face.

“With the iPhone X, your iPhone is locked until you look at it and it recognizes you. Nothing has ever been more simple, natural and effortless,”  Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing said in his keynote speech Tuesday. “This is the future of how we’ll unlock our smartphones and protect our sensitive information.”

However, as many have pointed out, this simplicity is the device’s potential downfall.

 This abuse, as Snowden points out, can come in many forms.

While some folks expressed concern that the iPhone X will allow someone to unlock your iPhone while you sleep, Apple directly countered that claim, noting that the feature will only work when the user looks at the device with their eyes open. Schiller also explained that Face ID will recognize a user even when they change their hairstyle, put on glasses, wear a hat or change their appearance in other ways—perhaps when an unconscious person has their eyes pulled open.

The good news, however, is that while this technology has these ominous implications for abuse, it is far more secure than any of the previous devices. According to Schiller, the Touch ID had a false unlock rate of one in 50,000, whereas the new Face ID only had an error rate of one in 1 million.

Apple also has an extensive history of resisting the police state attempts at creating back doors to their technology. Just last year, in a landmark case, Apple refused to help the government break the law and allow for the various spy agencies to monitor iPhone users with a special decryption key for the state.

 Had the government successfully forced Apple into unlocking the phone or creating a backdoor to their encryption, experts in the technology field warned that this could be the end of privacy as we know it. For now, however, privacy is still winning—that is, until we see the first case of police unlocking an iPhone X by pointing at a handcuffed person’s face.

Sue Equifax for up to $25,000 without a lawyer

Equifax’s security failure affected 143 million US consumers, or 44 percent of the US population. To add insult to injury, Equifax waited over a month before revealing the security breach it had suffered. If you’re one of the millions affected by the breach, a chatbot can now help you sue Equifax in small claims court, potentially letting you avoid hiring a lawyer for advice.

Even if you want to be part of the class action lawsuit against Equifax, you can still sue Equifax for negligence in small claims court using the DoNotPay bot and demand maximum damages. Maximum damages range between $2,500 in states like Rhode Island and Kentucky to $25,000 in Tennessee.

The bot, which launched in all 50 states in July, is mainly known for helping with parking tickets. But with this new update, its creator, Joshua Browder, who was one of the 143 million affected by the breach, is tackling a much bigger target, with larger aspirations to match. He says, “I hope that my product will replace lawyers, and, with enough success, bankrupt Equifax.”

Not that the bot helps you do anything you can’t already do yourself, which is filling out a bunch of forms — you still have to serve them yourself. Unfortunately, the chatbot can’t show up in court a few weeks later to argue your case for you either. To add to the headache, small claims court rules differ from state to state. For instance, in California, a person needs to demand payment from Equifax or explain why they haven’t demanded payment before filing the form.

Attorney Scott Nelson, from the advocacy organization Public Citizen, says he isn’t convinced a chatbot can successfully win a lawsuit. “I am not inclined to think it would be a panacea. Filing and winning a small claims case takes more than just filling in a form.”

Still, chatting with the bot on a friendly blue screen can help take the guesswork out of small claims court procedures. All you have to do is state your name and address and it generates eight pages of lawsuit documentation in PDF form for you to print and file.

Equifax seems like it’s going to put up a fight, so help in the form of chatbots can’t hurt. Peter Vogel, a trial and transactional lawyer in Texas, says, “I believe that Equifax will fight class action lawsuits [and] small claims courts actions. That does not mean that Equifax will prevail, but … given the scope of the 143 million individuals, it strikes me that Equifax will want to make this as complicated as possible for consumers.”

Nintendo Increases Inventory of Super NES Classic Edition; NES Classic Edition Returns to Stores

REDMOND, Wash.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Due to incredible demand for the upcoming Super Nintendo Entertainment System: Super NES Classic Edition system, Nintendo plans to ship the retro-inspired product into 2018. Originally, shipments were announced to cease at the end of this calendar year.

In addition, more units of Super NES Classic Edition will ship on its Sept. 29 launch day in the U.S. than were shipped of NES Classic Edition all last year, with subsequent shipments arriving in stores regularly. Fans have shown their unbridled enthusiasm for these Classic Edition systems, so Nintendo is working to put many more of them on store shelves.

The Super NES Classic Edition system features 21 legendary Super NES games such as Super Mario WorldThe Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Super Metroid. Launching on Sept. 29 at a suggested retail price of only $79.99, Super NES Classic Edition plugs directly into the TV using the provided HDMI cable, and comes with two wired controllers. For more information about Super NES Classic Edition, visit http://www.nintendo.com/super-nes-classic.

Next summer, Nintendo will also bring back the Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition system with new shipments. More information about the timing of the return of NES Classic Edition will be announced in the future.

NES Classic Edition features 30 classic NES games such as the original Super Mario Bros.The Legend of Zelda and Donkey Kong. For more information about NES Classic Edition, visit http://www.nintendo.com/nes-classic/.

Note to editors: Nintendo press materials are available at http://press.nintendo.com, a password-protected site. To obtain a login, please register on the site.

Article from BusinessWire

Ookla: Comcast Fastest ISP, T-Mobile Fastest Wireless Carrier

Ookla, the developer behind speedtest.net, has crowned Comcast and T-Mobile as the best choices for speed: Comcast Xfinity narrowly topped Verizon’s FiOS service as the fastest broadband ISP, while T-Mobile just edged out Verizon Wireless as the fastest wireless carrier. The data reflected 26 million unique broadband users, performing over 111 million tests across Ookla’s service. In the mobile space, about 3 million unique devices were used to generate 14 million tests, generating a comprehensive look at how each service performed both nationwide and over time.

“Comcast may be the fastest overall, but in certain areas, other competitors prevailed. In Southern regions like Texas and Florida, you’ll want to buy broadband service from Suddenlink. In Midwestern regions like Chicago and St. Louis, Mediacom provides the fastest broadband service, according to Ookla. In fact, Ookla also looked at the “winners” in major metropolitan areas, and found that Spectrum was the fastest in 24 of them, topping both Cox (19) and Comcast (18). “