Added up, those seven categories of Windows(TM) total ("HIGH vulnerabilities") == 168, which kind of blows the doors off the others' paltry 64, 32, and 24 respectively.
Here's what he says about that:
If we had to group the different Windows versions under one entry the statistics would look like this:
68 total vulnerabilities 47 high severity20 medium severity 1 low severity
As you can see a lot of Windows vulnerabilities apply to multiple Windows versions and because of that there is not a huge difference between the number for the entire Windows operating systems family and the numbers for different Windows versions.
So if accurate, that would put Windows as a whole in second place behind OS X, which is surprising. NIST presumably has no axe to grind and I have no reason to doubt their numbers, but I didn't look into how the blog author consolidated the Windows vulnerabilities.
IE has more high vulnerabilities than Chrome and Firefox combined though.
Google has chosen to use its power to harm Spain's entire economy
This actually shows why Google should not be allowed to operate just however it chooses.
So what's the problem exactly? Spain passed a law, and Google obeyed it.
But here it's blame Spain rather than the corporation that if can't use the values others create to gain money, then it'll deliberately harm them.
You're blaming Google for following the law? Or are you saying they should have obeyed the law in some other way that is less beneficial to Google and more beneficial to Spanish news organizations? Why?
In most cases where the cops take money from someone they've stopped, that person is usually given a choice of letting the cops take the money or be arrested.
Do you mean a cop might threaten to arrest you if you don't voluntarily hand over your money? I'm sure that happens, but I've never heard of any actual law that says the subject has a choice of arrest or seizure.
On July 13, 2015, Defendants gave Plaintiffs access to a database of approximately 500 pages of documents, including approximately 200 pages of documents they claim were “mistakenly” not produced during discovery, which ended on July 11, 2014, more than one year earlier.
I'm guessing they'll tell the court "oops" and that will be that. I wonder what happens to an ordinary citizen for withholding crucial evidence in a trial.
These idiots do understand that by filing a covenant that they have therefore stated that there alleged trademark can no be used by anyone without licensing whatsoever and ipso facto creates an untenable trademark.
Isn't the covenant only to not sue that one business?
After all, a person might suggest to another person that they put their phone on vibrate and shove it down their shorts while at work while the first person text-messages them all day, setting the phone off and creating stimulation.
That even appeared in a movie. Keeping the Faith I think.