So the UK as a whole (the people and the governments) have perhaps a different view of things because of their experiences.
You seem to be attempting to imply that the UK does this crap because "we know how scary is really is out there and this is what's really needed".
Wrong... in fact 180 degrees wrong. Certainly any UK citizen alive in the '80s is familiar with the threat of terrorism more intimately and immediately than the mot ofthe US but that lends a rather more sensible perspective. Such people know that, while terrible, the actual threat is small - potentially even vanishingly small - and barely worth more than a slightly cautious thought in day-to-day life.
The issue is not whether the UK population wants this law (it doesn't)(, the issue is whether the UK government wants this law that will in fact do little to combat "terrorism" that is not already being done) for other reasons and whether the UK population is little enough aware of the real dangers of it to swallow the propaganda or only raise a mild and polite English protest.
I haven't flown commercial in a while, but my understanding is that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession because -- it's a big intrusion on our privacy -- but we recognize that it is important.
Nope. We "make the concession" NOT because we "recognise it's important", but because our personal reasons for travel are sufficiently important to put up with the annoying and intrusive crap and because enough people have yet to stand up and say, "You know this is totally bullshit, right?"
Looks like you're 2 for 2 on being wrong about security front, Mr. Obama...
Well, only if you redefine "political party" because political parties in general seem to be a large chunk of the problem.
What the US needs are wide open primaries whereby the top 2 candidates irregardless of political party go to the general election.
Again maybe nice, but doesn't seem to fix the problem that only people supported by (and beholden to) uber-rich corporations are capable of getting elected. It might also be nice not to have an electorate that seems to go consistently for either the dumbest and most preposterous or most clearly lying through their teeth candidates available no matter what their political persuasion...
I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted with Trump himself, or the fact a character even more ludicrous than George W. (and I didn't think that were possible) appears to have a good chance of actually being president.
Any move towards deliberately forcing tech companies to undermine security and privacy protections for users absolutely is a backdoor and will be used by countries with much less regard for the privacy of its citizenry.
There are countries with less regard for the privacy of its citizenry than the US??? Do you mean the UK?
"We’re not going to sit back and let the disrupters just disrupt,” Iger said. “We’re going to participate in some of that disruption. And we’ll decide when the time is right to be more disruptive than we have been if we really think the business model is shifting rapidly. So far we do not see that."
Is it just me, or does that read like someone who's just leant a brand new buzz-word that everyone's telling him is important, but he's not quite sure what it means?
DRM is coming to Daz and there's nothing users can do about it.
Presumably there are, in fact, at least two things the users can do about it: 1/ Vote with their feet and use some other software 2/ Go find the inevitable crack for the software that makes the added DRM not such a problem.... i.e. pirate it.
Not sure either of those helps Daz out much though.... Gosh! Looks like the DRM might be counter-productive! Who knew?
I believe what Warner really wants to buy is Schrödinger's Streaming Service; it offers innovative, easy-to-use, on-demand, flexible access to all the content in the world at a price so perfectly balanced at to make customers flock to it while cheating a healthy profit-margin, while simultaneously providing no real competition to infexible, piece-meal, overpriced pay-TV.
Actually getting the source of the problem right DOES matter.
Yeah, not sure that's what he meant as such... I've been in exactly the same position so many times even with different teams in the same company.... Get a problem and the server guys instantly blame the network guys or the storage guys; the storage guys blame the server guys or the network guys; the network guys blame the server or storage guys... and everyone blame either the 3rd party software or the user.
The correct response to this is always "I don't give a shit what you think it is, how about you stop making assumptions, work together and find out what it actually is!"
Added to that, even if some other device on the network is found to cause the problem it still doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the Nest; A number of times I've seen a device not cope with another device working perfectly because of it's own problem... And this one's supposed to talk to other things, so the answer is still "I don't give a shit, try being part of the solution".