Yes, it is the point, but the problem is that home-grown solutions are rarely better, and often worse, from a security standpoint than the IT department they're trying to work around.
Honestly I've been on both sides of this argument... As an IT support person who's had to go in and take over a rogue operation after it self destructed spectacularly, and a "rogue operator" who had to deal with an IT department that grew up around our existing infrastructure and slowly tried to whittle away our autonomy. In both cases I felt my group was in the right, and I could spend hours telling you why, but I'm obviously a bit biased.
Funnily enough, the second case was a Federal agency (the FAA), and I did think some particularly unkind things at our IT...
Re: Re: Solution: Burn the computer and get another from a safe vendor
Actually, yes. They have bugs for USB cables, RJ-45 ports, keyboards, etc. They didn't get them from martians, they buy them from contractors. For someone saying "read snowden" you don't seem to have actually bothered keeping up with what's been published.
Is that how they phrased it? If so, I'm disappointed. The Betamax decision was so important because they phrased it as "Has substantial non-infringing uses." They recognized the primary use of home recording equipment at that point WAS illegal, but that there was a huge potential there for legal use... Phrasing it so that the decision is based on how it's used TODAY would shut down a lot of innovation...
Whether or not the guy was actively doing anything wrong, the theater had the right to throw him out. And that's where this should have ended: "Sir, we don't appreciate you wearing a recording device on your face while watching our film, even if you promise not to turn it on. We're refusing you service. Have a nice day."
We will also state more clearly the requirement/expectation for student software developers to consult with the University before creating applications that depend on Yale data, and we will create an easy means for them to do so.
Didn't want to use that sort of language in Insider Chat. But, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK!?
I would've shrugged and went "Meh" over FBI involvement, as they OBVIOUSLY don't have anything better to do. But DHS? Immigration and Customs Enforcement? The people that supposedly can't secure the borders due to a lack of manpower? What the hell business do they have being involved in this?
God. Now I actually hope more people start doing this, so that these assholes have to waste more time being the lapdogs of their corporate overlords.
Even after years and years of inflation increasing tuition costs, you could still get out of my alma mater today for around $5k/year as a full time, in-state student. And I seem to have gotten at least as good of an education as most of my coworkers.
With that in mind, I can't understand how $20k/year for an online education is even remotely attractive.
I don't think Facebook is necessarily in its "decline" phase yet.
And Yahoo? Have you seen their traffic numbers? Their financials? Just because those of us in the "tech bubble" don't think of Yahoo as relevant, it doesn't change the fact that there are still millions of adults that still have Yahoo as their home page.
And that's kind of my point: I think people who are "tech insiders" really suffer from a bad echo chamber effect, thinking most people share their interests and beliefs. All signs point to the vast majority of people going to YouTube to watch music videos and watch viral videos of cats being... cats... Is the audience of the independent content creators even a drop in the revenue bucket?
With more and more revenue coming from things like deals with the record labels and partnerships with "channels" or other big players, does YouTube care if a bunch of small, independent creators get ground up in the gears of ContentID?
I'm not saying the creators don't have a right to be pissed, they're obviously being screwed over, I'm just saying I still haven't even seen any actual numbers that they matter financially to Google.