Information about 120 million LinkedIn user accounts was stolen in 2012, the attack reportedly blamed on Russian hackers.
So what you're saying is the data IS already stored locally, they just want an updated copy.
How were they scammed? They found a product they wanted at a price they thought was fine (otherwise they never would have bought it to begin with) and only got mad when they found they could have bought it cheaper. Something they could have done with a simple web search before purchasing. They weren't scammed they were just lazy.
He's actually correct here. If something has happened to one of my immediate family, I would have no problem breaking any law, doing anything I can think of if it might save my family member. Torture? sure, breaking and entering sure? sure. I won't even have to be convinced of your guilt. If it was even remotely possible I'd be doing it. And that is EXACTLY why we don't let people in those situations make the rules. You aren't thinking correctly. You're not thinking of the long term consequences of your actions or the damage you might be doing to yourself and others. That's why we're supposed to have elected officials who are supposed to think these things through, consider the short term and long term consequences, how things affect peoples rights, and make the appropriate laws to govern how these things are implemented. I know that last line seems like a joke, but that's how it's supposed to go.
Typically it's not the hardware that makes a system outdated, but the software. If you're running software from the era that the system was created in, it will run just as fast as it did back then. It's only when you try to install new software on an old system that things slow to a crawl as the new software is expecting allot more resources than the system can give.
10 year old software on a 10 year old system, no problem. 1 year old software on a 10 year old system, problem.
I don't thing he was trying to say it was an Apple hard drive, just a system from Apple with a hard drive. You could replace Apple with any other manufacturer (Dell, HP, Compaq) and the statement would still be correct.
Your statement implies that surveillance is currently useful, when pretty much all evidence currently shows that its already pretty useless.
Knee jerk reaction followed by a walking back of said reaction...sounds like this woman has a bright future in politics if you ask me.
It did, however, use its "risk assessment rules" to determine the terrorist/felon to be of no threat.
Let me guess. It was a white guy wasn't it?
Well obviously Mr. Barnett forgot to include such a disclaimer on his Facebook page which is practically an admission that others posts DO reflect his opinions. It's really quite simple.
Came to say the same thing...Preventing him from getting his Degree!!! Outrage.... wait he was a theater major? This may be a blessing in disguise.
The sad thing is, there were probably people who said similar things BEFORE we started torturing people. Yet we went ahead and did it anyway.
Now that he's sold everything to Disney there's actually a much better chance of this happening. The Mouse is going to be driven by profit motive rather than whatever weird artistic integrity motive the George tries to use; and they know releasing the original versions will bring in a metric ass ton of money. The only minor hold-back is that Fox has the distribution rights to "A New Hope" so they will need to come to some sort of agreement there, but with the potential money involved that shouldn't be a major issue. Many people are speculating we may even get them right before the new movie comes out next year, but that may be to quick a turnaround to get them done in time.
I've said this before, but there is absolutely no reason any of these cities should be paying a portion of their ticket revenue to the companies behind these cameras. You can pay them for the camera system, you can pay them to install the camera system, you can pay them to maintain the camera system. Those area all standard charges for hardware/software systems. To actually pay for how much it is uses is purely a money grab by the camera companies.
My company like many has a security system with back-end software to utilize it. We don't get charge per video or picture taken by those cameras. We paid them for the installation and purchase of the cameras and software and then a yearly maintenance fee for support and software updates.
Not that I think camera's are a great thing to begin with, but if more cities pushed back on this requirement, maybe we would see more sanity with how these things are being used since half the revenue won't be going back the manufacturer.
Despite their greater R&D budgets, I think what you see with monopolies is a much greater focus on incremental innovation. How can we tweak this product or this service so that our customers keep coming to the well. They know they aren't going out of business anytime soon and want to keep their growth steadily going up so that every quarter they can show growth to the stockholders. They don't want to introduce something that will cause a spike in growth followed by flatness, they'd much rather have a steady climb up.
Non-monopolies are focused on radical innovation. They're throwing everything they can think of on the wall and are seeing what sticks. They don't hold back anything because there is no guaranty that they will be around tomorrow. So despite a smaller R&D budget than a monopoly player, they are getting more and bigger stuff done.
So I think there is innovation at both, it's just that the pace and motivation behind that innovation is completely different
You mean like Bush's copyright office, or Clinton's or Bush Sr's before him? Quite trying to make this into a Democrat vs. Republican thing. They both like to make Swiss cheese out of the Constitution. The only difference is where they make the holes.
Well if he goes to a competing restaurant then he can be sued for causing harm to the original one. And lets not even consider what would happen if he wrote a positive review of the other restaurant.
There is this line on the 3rd page of the lawsuit:
"They hid behind the law like the animals they were"
If that animal was a duck the man has a Supreme Court precedent to use.
I actually don't think self driving vehicles will affect the UPS/Fedex guys. Someone still needs to grab the appropriate box(es) and deliver it up to the house/office.
But other industries like the taxi and trucking industries and others will be greatly impacted by driverless vehicles. Safety will be improved as the vehicles will always observe traffic laws and will be aware of traffic conditions (The Tracy Morgan accident likely wouldn't have happened with a driverless vehicle). For taxi's there's no driver to be robbed, no need for lunch or bathroom breaks so cars can run 24/7 only stopping for gas/maintenance. There'd be no racism, i.e. I'm not going to that neighborhood at that hour, or I'm not picking up that person as the car just goes where the fare is.
Personally I can't wait, as my wife is disabled and doesn't drive, so having a driverless car for her would greatly improve her freedom as she could go where she wants when she wants. Right now, no matter how short the trip we have to pile everyone (2 kids) in the car so I can take her where she needs to go.
It would make no sense for the government to subsidize the book stores, otherwise all sorts of other businesses would demand the same protection. It's not the governments job to keep businesses afloat, that's the job of the business owner. While no site agrees on the numbers the general consensus is that a majority of businesses go under withing the first couple years. Sometimes that's due to incompetence, sometimes bad luck or a combination of the two, but at no point is it the governments job to swoop in and save the day.
"swatting is when you fake a call into police that results in a local SWAT team being dispatched to your victim's residence"
You mean like reporting that you smell marijuana outside someones door?