Then ballot secrecy was dead long ago and selfies didn't kill it. Don't buy into the moral panic bullshit.
Cameras small enough to easily take a picture of a ballot have been around for decades. Need to be more discreet? Button cams. Heck, absentee ballots can be filled out and mailed in the presence of someone else.
involve big companies stomping all over small ones for trademark 'violations' for prodcuts that could 't possibly be confused?
While Google isn't small, BMW is certainly a large company whining about something that could never be confused with how Google is using the very common word 'alphabet'.
But the reality is they happen all the time, and much of the time, they either win or end up settling.
Yes, that's the problem. It's just a waste of both Google's and BMW's time and money. The only ones that win are the lawyers. The point of the story: everyone stop being stupid and rein in the lawyers.
Re: It's the same move repeated over and over again by pirates: rather than pay the producers a pittance, they use technology to evade clear law and then don't understand why people get pissed off and try to stop their thefts.
I would love to pay producers of content "a pittance" for the pleasure of having access to their work. However:
1) They frequently want far more than what any average sane person would call "a pittance" and would instead refer to it as "highway robbery" or "you must be out of you skull and are you fucking serious?" 2) They choose to offer the content only on horrendously inconvenient, highly fragmented, utterly outdated, and just plain buggy services and formats. 3) They insist on corrupting the political process to try to hold back the tide and don't give a ratfuck about what else they need to destroy just so they can get a few more short years of declining profits on legacy business models.
So convince your pay masters to give the customers what they want at reasonable prices on convenient services, and stop being assholes, and you can have my money. Until then, it's my money that I refuse to give away for your shitty product.
I'm gonna side with the judge on this one, even though I've never had my luggage lost or been bumped from a flight.
He had a bad experience with a company. It happens. He tried to resolve the issue through normal channels. But this is where it goes off the rails, and he was given abysmally poor customer service and no explanation of what happened. So long as he was using his experience to dig into the problem and was doing so openly.
It all could have been avoided if BA had bothered to treat their ordinary customers with respect and fix the issue and tell them what happened before the judge even needed to identify who he was. Everything after that looks like a cover-up of a massively powerful company trying to protect it's bottom line at the expense of everything else.
Also, a trick coin with both sides as heads has the same probability of coming up tails as each of these sorority souvenir books has of being a bomb, no matter how many times it goes through airport security.
Probabilities can be tricky, ya know. Be glad the TSA didn't fall for them and is ensuring that many things that are not bombs do not end up on planes.
Doesn't murder require intent? Did any of those useless local journalists bother to ask the grandstanding DA such a basic question? Or are the reporters just stenographers now?
Look, you want to charge the operator with some kind of negligence, endangerment, or interference charge, that makes sense. Maybe even something like manslaughter if it really results in a death could be reasonable. But murder? Bet the DA graduated from the Cooley Law School or got his degree in a cereal box.
Public disclosure (or at least the threat of it) is the only way to put pressure on companies to fix security holes in software, including software in cars.
Let's not forget that these same 2 security researchers put on a demonstration on a Toyota Prius and a Ford Escape at Defcon in 2013. At the time, it required a wired connection to the diagnostic port. The automakers ignored it and said their systems were secure.
As to the threat concern, yes, these guys did have physical access to the Jeep used. But they are also able to scan the network using a burner phone on Sprint's network that UConnect uses to locate other cars running the same software all over the place. The same vulnerable software that they can exploit remotely.
Yes, because when the US government accuses a citizen of foreign country of breaking a law in a country the foreign citizen has never been to, the only reasonable course of action is to be led like a lamb to the slaughter in a broken justice system.
It's no longer about the crime he allegedly committed. It's about abuse of power, US imperialism, political corruption and crony capitalism, and a biased justice system.
It's not just that the DRM plugin itself isn't something you would voluntarily want on your system.
The entire infrastructure and method of distributing these kinds of plugins (NPAPI) being used has been recognized as a security nightmare for years.
What NPAPI does is allow any random website that has something embedded that requires a plugin to point to any random location the website wants as a source to get that plugin. Depending on browser settings, it may download and install the plugin automatically, or pop up a window like what is described. The large majority of users will just click accept on the window. This is why Chrome does not allow it. Mozilla has greatly modified how it works in Firefox to only point to Mozilla's trusted plugin library. I believe Opera does not allow it either (they use something similar to Chrome).
United's solution to how to play video on someone's device looks identical to one of the most popular ways to spread malware from a decade ago - the "video codec plugin" scam.
You seem to be implying that I think people should be driving unsafe cars on public roads.
I do not want that. I want to be able to drive safely.
What I want to prevent is the inevitable overreaction and counterproductive bad legislation that prevents people from legally tinkering or making modification to the cars (and other devices) they own, and not to require approval from the manufacturer. Your words: "only run manufacturers approved software" is what I have a problem with.
The act of driving unsafely, or of operating an unsafe vehicle, is what should be illegal. It should not be illegal if I run different software in my car that Chrysler or Ford or GM or whoever doesn't like, so long as that software isn't otherwise dangerous.