text
stringlengths
14
502
[1755.96 --> 1756.12] credit,
[1756.22 --> 1756.64] but there actually
[1756.64 --> 1757.32] are like six
[1757.32 --> 1757.44] different threads.
[1757.44 --> 1758.10] I'm sure there's
[1758.10 --> 1758.46] a lot,
[1758.64 --> 1759.08] and I'm sure
[1759.08 --> 1759.52] there's going to
[1759.52 --> 1760.14] continue to be
[1760.14 --> 1760.32] more.
[1760.42 --> 1760.84] Thank you to
[1760.84 --> 1761.50] everybody who's
[1761.50 --> 1761.92] been posting
[1761.92 --> 1762.64] about this stuff.
[1762.94 --> 1763.38] And that's not
[1763.38 --> 1763.74] to say they're
[1763.74 --> 1764.36] duplicate threads.
[1764.54 --> 1765.02] There's just so
[1765.02 --> 1765.88] many facets of it.
[1765.88 --> 1767.10] Yeah, and there's
[1767.10 --> 1768.50] conflicting ones,
[1768.56 --> 1769.08] and there's ones
[1769.08 --> 1770.22] that grow on other
[1770.22 --> 1770.44] ones,
[1770.44 --> 1771.16] and it's a
[1771.16 --> 1771.40] nightmare.
[1771.58 --> 1772.24] Our forum is a
[1772.24 --> 1773.10] happening place.
[1773.20 --> 1773.66] If you don't go
[1773.66 --> 1774.14] there, you should.
[1774.30 --> 1774.50] Yeah.
[1774.82 --> 1775.34] It's cute.
[1775.60 --> 1775.74] Yeah.
[1777.18 --> 1777.68] The people who
[1777.68 --> 1778.50] are suing Intel,
[1778.68 --> 1779.20] do you think,
[1779.72 --> 1780.28] so here's the
[1780.28 --> 1780.94] grounds of at
[1780.94 --> 1781.38] least one of
[1781.38 --> 1781.52] them.
[1781.76 --> 1782.04] Okay.
[1782.30 --> 1782.88] The lawsuit,
[1783.02 --> 1783.50] this lawsuit
[1783.50 --> 1783.88] in particular,
[1784.02 --> 1784.40] I think it was
[1784.40 --> 1785.24] maybe the first
[1785.24 --> 1785.40] one,
[1785.48 --> 1786.12] Garcia v.
[1786.24 --> 1786.96] Intel Corporation
[1786.96 --> 1787.50] filed on
[1787.50 --> 1787.80] Wednesday,
[1787.94 --> 1788.64] January 3rd.
[1789.68 --> 1790.32] The suit's
[1790.32 --> 1790.78] plaintiffs
[1790.78 --> 1792.34] allege that the
[1792.34 --> 1793.08] computer chips
[1793.08 --> 1793.80] containing the
[1793.80 --> 1794.92] fatal security
[1794.92 --> 1795.54] flaw,
[1795.70 --> 1796.02] well there's a
[1796.02 --> 1796.46] lot of F's
[1796.46 --> 1796.62] here,
[1797.02 --> 1797.68] they violate
[1797.68 --> 1798.62] California and
[1798.62 --> 1799.38] Tennessee law
[1799.38 --> 1799.90] specifically,
[1799.90 --> 1801.00] the plaintiff's
[1801.00 --> 1801.54] bring claims
[1801.54 --> 1802.34] for breach of
[1802.34 --> 1802.98] warranty and
[1802.98 --> 1803.78] violations of
[1803.78 --> 1804.80] consumer protection
[1804.80 --> 1805.80] statutes,
[1805.86 --> 1806.34] alleging that
[1806.34 --> 1807.18] Intel's selling
[1807.18 --> 1808.10] of computer chips
[1808.10 --> 1808.92] with this fatal
[1808.92 --> 1809.66] security flaw
[1809.66 --> 1810.96] misled consumers
[1810.96 --> 1811.44] about the
[1811.44 --> 1812.14] performance and
[1812.14 --> 1813.36] reliability of
[1813.36 --> 1813.84] the computers
[1813.84 --> 1814.78] operating with
[1814.78 --> 1815.52] this hardware.
[1815.52 --> 1819.06] my first thought,
[1819.46 --> 1820.22] like they have a
[1820.22 --> 1820.90] quote here saying
[1820.90 --> 1821.38] that they look
[1821.38 --> 1821.86] forward to holding
[1821.86 --> 1822.64] Intel responsible
[1822.64 --> 1823.26] for exposing
[1823.26 --> 1823.84] millions of
[1823.84 --> 1824.44] Americans to
[1824.44 --> 1825.36] unnecessary data
[1825.36 --> 1826.42] security risks.
[1829.06 --> 1829.80] That sounds
[1829.80 --> 1830.14] noble,
[1830.28 --> 1830.70] it's like yeah,
[1831.34 --> 1831.80] stick them,