but Endace was also awarded $11.1 million in government grants to defray 50% of the cost of "substantial product developments." Endace isn't saying which products were developed using these grants, and the New Zealand government says the company isn't obligated to reveal how this money was spent.
The company says nothing and the government, after handing out a grant to the tune of eleven million says the company doesn't have to say... yeah, I'd say the default assumption should be that the 'product developments' were focused around spying until the company provides evidence to the contrary.
It's nearly impossible to tell, making for an excellent poe either way. The funny thing is how easy it is to flip that argument right around for other hypothetical examples.
'Sure it's at the top of the charts. But imagine where it'd be if it weren't for the DRM.'
In either case you've got 'but what if...' hypotheticals, however given I've seen multiple people say 'I would have bought X if it didn't have DRM' over the years, and not once have I seen 'I would have bought if it had DRM', I'm thinking the lack of DRM has a greater impact on sales than the presence of it.
The funny bit of course is that with corporate sovereignty being a big issue they've really only got themselves to blame.
They could simply see how toxic it is to various parties and toss it to the betterment of the public, lawmakers and governments (basically everyone not a large corporation), but since that stands to tick off the people who bought them instead you see them wiggling and squirming, trying to convince the recalcitrant parties that it's not that toxic, and look, they even named it something different, that's got to count for something, right?
Now if we can just get that idea and expand upon it, have the malware and virus makers more focused on attacking each other than the poor sods playing unwilling(and often unknowing) 'host', we'd be golden.
At first I thought that both were equally absurd, but after thinking about it I think the second wins out, if only just.
The first is basically whining that her pet bill didn't pass and the terrible things that happened that would totally have been stopped had it passed, but the second displays a complete willful ignorance of reality and what has actually happened, not only sticking with the ridiculous 'Obama is handing the internet to the commies!' line but ignoring the fact that the transition has already happened.
But there you have it: the NSA is lobbying for first peek at shared data from US companies, and it's claiming its only interest is better cybersecurity. And it's making this pitch while glossing over the fact that it is not -- and never has been -- a domestic law enforcement agency.
Also glossing over the fact that when it comes to 'better cybersecurity' they are decidedly adversarial to everyone that's not them, up to and including the US public, meaning even if they were a domestic aimed agency it would still be a terrible idea.
I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
He'd free to be an asshole to be sure, just like everyone is free to call him out for being an asshole(twice over in fact given he tried to turn his jackass comments to his benefit by deleting them and making it look like the lawyer was the sleazy one.)
"You're free to say what you want" is not the same thing as "You're free to say anything you want and not be called out on what you say."
Really? This is the hill you want to defend? This world-class asshole? The person who displayed a stunning level of hypocrisy in suing someone for doing something he himself did to others, and then gleefully celebrated the person's death, followed by doubling-down on their assholeishness by continuing to sue and unmask the other, now dead person?
While sometimes things work out such that defending justice or fairness requires that you defend someone you don't agree with or even are disgusted by there is nothing to defend here. You've got someone acting like jackass incarnate, for no other reason than he can, and this is the guy you want to defend?
(Wrote up the setup and forgot the 'punchline'...)
As such any sane, 'moderate' candidate from either party would be all but tarred and feathered by their own party for not 'standing up to those twisted evildoers from the other tribe' and being 'too weak to adequately serve the interests of those voting for them'.
After all if people wanted to vote for tribe B they'd vote for someone in tribe B, why 'waste' a vote on someone that might as well be a member of the other tribe but that's too dishonest to admit it?
The fine isn't to pay for the trial, as bad as that would be.
No, this is a fine for daring to sue the police for their actions, punishment for not being a good little peon and accepting his 'bad luck', since those in positions of authority are never wrong and they never make mistakes or do something they didn't mean to.
(And of course this being Turkey they are absolutely never thin-skinned children masquerading as adults, throwing tantrums when people say mean things about them. Never ever.)
That the fine may be somewhat small is irrelevant as it's secondary, the primary purposes of it is to send a message, and that it's done quite well.
Part of the problem is that the extremists on both sides are running the show, and the 'well' of discourse and discussion has been completely poisoned by those on both sides.
If A is for something, then B had better be against it.
If B proposes something, then any good member of the A party had better vote against it.
Compromise is a sign of weakness, if the other tribe is for something your tribe is against it, even if you personally are for it, and if you have the audacity to suggest that the other tribe might have a good idea on something you'll be torn to shreds by members from your own tribe for being 'weak' and 'betraying the interests of those that voted for you'.
Even if the prices were the same streaming services would still have a significant perk that standard cable doesn't:
The ability to watch what you want, when you want.
Instead of sitting down and hoping that there's something interesting on and that you haven't missed out on too much of it streaming services allow you to watch anything in the catalog they offer, at any time, even allowing you to pause and do something else for a while without having to worry about missing anything.
Convincing people to drop that and go back to the 'I hope there's something decent on' of 'standard' cable is a hard sell to put it mildly, and unfortunately for the cable companies more and more people are starting with 'Watch whatever, at any time'-streaming as the default.
I always find it funny when people post in the comments talking about how sites should in fact be liable for the comments and/or submissions of their users, completely oblivious to the fact that were that the case they themselves wouldn't be able to comment at all, because it would be too risky for sites to allow user submitted content.
It's kinda like watching someone standing on a bridge, arguing that the bridge supporting them shouldn't exist. They're arguing against the very thing that provides them support/speech, either incapable or unwilling to understand that such a move would negatively impact them as well.