This actually shows why Google should not be allowed to operate just however it chooses.
Google shouldn't be allowed to shut down its operations in a country?
Google has chosen to use its power to harm Spain's entire economy
If Spain's entire economy relied on Google continuing operations quite so much, perhaps they shouldn't have taunted the company into leaving the country?
... it will definitely not cause Google to be "nicer" elsewhere, but only to gain more power to extract more tribute.
Extract more tribute... you mean, by sending more viewers to your website for free so you can earn more from your own advertising, notwithstanding any other mechanism you may have for monetising eyeballs? Darn them and their sneaky algorithms!
You're right, Google needs to be stopped! No wait, they stopped here voluntarily, and that was bad. They need to be forced to continue! But they also have to give us their money, and not just because we run their ads, but because we ... want it?
While I don't disagree that US gun culture is a large component of the domestic arms race, I think you're jumping the gun (heh) by saying that one is to blame for the other. You at least have to concede that's there's a feedback loop, but pressure won't obviously be restored by cutting the loop, either.
And even the high/medium/low breakdown of vulnerabilities doesn't really give enough information to compare the "security" of the operating systems, truly - which vulnerabilities are remote, which require shell access, which require particular software to be installed to access the bug?
The point of posting was mostly to just derail the mindless nature of the "Windows bad, Linux gud" debate, and turn it into a more reasoned discussion - every modern OS is far too complex to be completely confident of its security, and most server OSes run far too much third party services to believe that all of them are secure.
Up-to-date, well configured Windows servers are just as secure as up-to-date, well configured Linux servers - they are both difficult to hack, and neither is impossible to hack. Both are capable of running services that drop effective security to zero, and sometimes businesses mandate use of such software for reasons that the IT department is unable to overcome.
I'm not sure if up-to-date well configured Linux desktops are more secure than up-to-date well configured Windows desktops, but I suspect the former are more common... but that's more to do with clueless users being more common on Windows platforms than Linux platforms. If everyone were to suddenly switch to Linux as their primary operating system, I very much doubt we'd see any reduction in home computer hacking, botnets or otherwise.
Yes, Windows XP is the most common operating system found in botnets today; it's also 14 years old. How many security vulnerabilities do you think still exist in RedHat 7.2, using the 2.4.7-10 kernel?
For me? I use Windows at home, Linux at work. I've tried installing Linux occasionally at home, but it just doesn't work for me. I know how to use and maintain a Windows system, but I only know how to use a Linux system, so for me Windows is actually the more secure route. YMMV.
Just so you know, it looks very shill-ish to put "(TM)" after a product name in a comment
Yeah, I'll pay that. I was just copying how the parent comment referred to the software in question (which was obviously not shilling, due to its content), but that wouldn't come across in the email notification.
Apologies for jumping in late, but I can't believe that people still attack Windows(TM) after two decades of improvement from Microsoft in handling security issues, and two worsening track records from everyone else.
Even if there was no copyright people wold still write book, and possibly more intersting books that were not influenced by the publishers, where writers took on the input form readers to improve their craft or read up about how to write and what not to do and what to do.
I'm not saying that no books would be written without copyright, but if copyright was completely abolished then it would be trivial to take someone else's published book and republish it for free. Yes, that's already the case with pirate sites, but if the copy is available on Amazon then the original author may lose a number of sales from people who may have been looking to purchase.
Then again, maybe Amazon would prevent this even if not legally required to do so, because they don't take any margin from free "sales" on their site, so they won't want to push away the authors who actually create the new content that people are willing to pay money for.
So... I dunno. I suspect that the hypothetical abolition of copyright would see a dramatic short-term drop in publication as people tried to figure out what the ramifications were... but by the medium-term the error bars on my prognostication efforts are too wide to see without turning my head.
- Have the qualifications for membership to the AG changed?
If AG membership was previously only held by authors who are published, then survivorship bias will greatly inflate their incomes compared to now, if you also include self-published authors. Basically you're comparing the old income of the 1% who were accepted, vs the new income of the 100% who applied.
Just because you want to believe that it proves your point, doesn't make it on-topic.
Breaking encryption and banning encryption are not the same thing, even though some of the symptoms are similar. Arresting a shoplifter and killing a shoplifter are not the same thing, even though some of the symptoms are similar.
Heck, introducing a flaw in encryption and finding a flaw in encryption aren't even the same thing, even if one can lead to the other. I understand that you have a similar emotional response to the ideas of breaking encryption and banning encryption, but that *still* doesn't make it the same thing.
I agree with you that either is a bad thing, but your original statement, "I'm sorry, but those that interpreted the original statements to mean that the UK wanted to ban encryption were correct.", is plain wrong. Those interpretations were incorrect and harmful, they lead to people debating the wrong point and being dismissed, and (can) end up hiding any debate over the actual issues.
I agree that having the missing device make a noise is likely to be more practical in most situations, but if I dropped my wallet while jogging in a park I might prefer it not to call out to other people. Also, if buried under sofa cushions sometimes it can be hard to hear small speakers.
Also, there's nothing wrong with a signalling mechanism that's accessible to the deaf :-)
So does this one allow you to charge it? How often must you charge it. Or does it allow you to replace the batteries? If so what kind of batteries does it take and what is the battery life? Or do I have to get a new device every once in a while, how much will they go for and how often must they be replaced?
From the actual page, they expect an 18-month battery life using CR2450 (630mAh) batteries in the .micro tag (⌀29x12mm), and an 8-month battery life using CR1632 (130mAh) batteries in the .tagg tag, user changeable. Those batteries seem to go for about a dollar each, from a quick search.
I think it's awesome what they're squeezing out of the tech - the devices contain multiple LEDs and the page mentions triangulation, which may mean that they'll be awesome for locating your wallet when it's fallen behind the sofa. I think they have an uphill battle convincing people they need the devices though - As Leigh mentioned, people are used to being disappointed by these things.
Yeah, at this stage in development they should switch from 802.15.1 to 802.15.4 so they can't talk to your phone any more, they have to find a new SoC and probably redo a whole bunch of the design work that they've already completed.
Not saying that this kind of device using Thread wouldn't be a good idea, but what would this particular group possibly gain that would be worth switching to Thread?
Consider, if they had legitimate specific intelligence about a pending attack, what are the odds that they would announce that fact?
If I were part of a terrorist organisation, I would certainly want to make use of these kinds of public announcements - plan something for nearby the announcement, so they think any specific info may have been worthwhile, just insufficient. Or plan something counter to the announcements, to lower public confidence in their "protectors".
Luckily for everyone (not least myself), I'm not part of a terrorist organisation.
The region locking is the main reason I've never owned a Blu-ray player. I was living in Singapore when BR was really becoming popular, but I was slated to move to the UK soon, and I always expected to return to my home country of Australia at some point. It never made sense to buy a player locked to any particular region, because I'd always have trouble playing or sourcing movies... so I didn't.
Now I'm back in Australia, and just used to not having a Blu-ray player; and really, between the DVDs I still own and the various streaming options available, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.