I disagree, google was never a toy. It set out to replace stupid bots and manual aggregation with a combination of smarter bots and intelligent algorithms. They succeeded right from the beginning, altavista and babbel and yahoo didn't stand a chance to compete with them, because google was truly innovating and not just scratching an itch.
Well, there is only one answer to that: Write all youtube reviews with as much irony as you can. It will look good in writing, even though everyone knows, the opposite is the case. That's what human ressources departments do on work summaries in germany, where they are legally required to only write positive stuff. Like "he made an effort towards punctuality". Fight the system inside out.
I don't think he'll have a hard time. If you're good, people will take you in. And if background checks are tight in the united states, he can always go abroad, where nobody cares about strange sentences in the US.
I mean, 1 year of prison for electronic fraud, what the hell...
Having this list is not the problem, but using it for sending people to intimidate people on the list is. Instead they should those people free passes to libraries, cultural places, sport events, support groups, or something like that.
Crime prevention doesn't work through threats and punishment.
Well, the decision in itself is not surprising, as it only make sense. What's surprising is, that a texan grand jury judges in a way that makes sense, even though a dead cop is involved.
It's all a big tragedy, but maybe someone should learn from it, that only because a deputy requests a no-knock warrant, the risks of this should be waged against the crime that the suspect is searched for, and if it's not worth having someone dying from a search warrant, deny no-knock and keep all the citizens safer. Because one thing is sure: Noone would've died because of marijuana consumption or dealing.
Well, maybe we can take this the other way. If I have to go to prison for a crime, maybe you could send my avatar to a virtual prison instead? Because, in a sense I'm serving my time, whether you like it or not.
I think the question is a philosophic one, since someone invented an encryption tool that has several passwords, and will "unlock" different data depending on the password you choose for decrypting. A certain password can even destroy the data that is hidden.
There won't be a single former customer today, as this combination of industrial fat and industrial sugar (traces of nut and cocoa can be found for marketing purposes) is a highly addictive drug, aimed at kids and women. When you eat it, your level of serotonine will shoot up in no time (just like with Ben & Jerrys), so once you're an addict, it is very hard to quit, because the natural production of serotonine has gone down.
It's like showing an article about an overdose-victim to a pusher and hoping he will stop - not gonna happen.
Well, if your kids break a window, you pay for those damages as well, doesn't matter if you were there or not. So if you let others use your internet connection in a country where you are by law liable for everything that happens from your access point IP-adrdess, you have to pay for those damages as well. I don't see what's the problem here? (Except that internet access points should be open for everyone all the time without any liability for the access point provider, as it's just one link in a chain of services, but that's a whole different story.)