>>Not a problem. My front door has a lever lock that requires me to turn a key to lock it.
Ever gone away and not been sure if you remembered to lock it?
4539 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
>>Not a problem. My front door has a lever lock that requires me to turn a key to lock it.
Ever gone away and not been sure if you remembered to lock it?
It's pretty useful to be able to assign temporary pass codes to people for the lock and also see remotely if it's been used, if it's closed and locked or left open. These products are very popular with AirBnB hosts. Even as just an every day obsessive compulsive who always wonders if she's left the door unlocked when she goes away, a product like this has appeal.
Yep. Compare their behaviour with a company like TalkTalk. Whilst it's a cock-up, and undoubtedly a PITA to the affected customers, the company's response seems professional and pro-active. They responded quickly, reached out to customers proactively, set up a dedicated email address for customers to contact them with and arranged compensation.
The company is also a supporter of Net Neutrality. In all, they seem a good company.
Apparently he has a Masters in Biology and is part way through his Phd.
You appear not to have actually read his argument. He didn't say, to use your analogy, that blue horses were worse at foot races. He argued that blue horses were less interested in average in footraces. He argued that if blue horses tended to choose to go into show-jumping then holding back pink horses, or preferentially promoting blue horses in an effort to make sure a race was fifty:fifty between colours was misguided. You can agree or disagree with him but you have heavily misrepresented his argument.
Also, why are we using analogies here, anyway? Surely men and women are concepts we're all familiar with?
>>And no, he wasn't 'polite'. It's fundamentally not polite to question whether your female colleagues are biologically capable of doing their jobs.
Another poster linked to it elsewhere so I've just read through it in his entirety. The person you are replying to is correct - his piece was very polite. You are very wrong - nowhere in it is he suggesting that female colleagues are biologically not capable of doing their jobs. I'll link it again here.
You plainly have not read the piece or else have a tremendous determination to misinterpret it. Therefore you have no business telling the poster who has that they're wrong. It's actually a very interesting read and does attempt to support its points.
It's a bad definition. It presumes the thing you have to fear when speaking out is the government supressing your voice. That may have been true once but these days there are companies more powerful than many governments. And unlike governments which could only deprive you of printing presses, companies like Facebook and Google can deprive you of talking to your community. Because they believe they own it rather than the people it is made up of.
Hiring should be about ability to do the job well. Nothing else. By all means identify why there is a lack of candidates in a particular demographic - for example girls in school being discouraged from IT - and address it. By all means deal with cases where prejudice is preventing the hiring of qualified candidates - for example, racism. But the goal is to make hiring about the ability to contribute the most, not ham-fistedly treat a symptom rather than a cause.
Google's culture is worrying to me because they have massive influence on what people can say. Their ability to supress a view, an idea or even just a funny video, is greater than a lot of governments. Someone sent me a funny clip of Harry Potter dropping the dragon egg from one of the films and it exploding terrorist-style. Fairly dumb, quite funny. Half an hour later it was removed as "Hate Speech". Not that this is hugely consequential, but just observing that unlike governments, Google can do what it likes. Including shutting down debates. Honestly, if this person wants to discuss male vs. female careers, I'd far rather him do so openly so I can engage and challenge his views than for him to go away with them unexamined and many others to wonder if his views have to be censored that there must be something to them.
All great ideas challenge the status quo. That doesn't mean that everything which does is a great idea, but it does mean you can't institutionalise the suppression of anything that challenges your views because inevitably a few of those things will be something you were wrong about.
>>What he *did* say was that differences in the way the sexes think might account for the lack of women joining the ranks of programmers in the first place - that they are simply drawn to other things, things that involve relating to people more.
If so then it's likely more a pressure towards IT for many males. Girls mature more quickly than boys (probably to do with cave people not having a word for 'jailbait'). Consequently a girl at school is usually more capable socially on average than a boy at the same age. Perhaps it's as simple as IT appealing to those who seek subjects dependent on simple, learnable rules. As career paths start as young as fourteen / fifteen (choosing GCSEs), perhaps if career paths settled in later in life you'd see, not more women taking IT, but fewer men.
It's a hypothesis only, but it's one I could entertain. Essentially that IT is a career perceived as not depending on social success and girls acquiring social adeptness and team mentality earlier than (not more than) boys.
Even if there are biological predispositions to certain careers, it's meaningless as a guide to who you should hire unless the disparity is, to use a statistical term, fucking enormous.
If women were - very hypothetically - 5% less capable of higher mathematics on average, it would still be insanity to use male / female as a determinant in hiring policy. And 5% is actually pretty high, if there were a difference of that much, it would have been easy to prove by this point.
Biology primarily influences women's careers by the fact women often take career breaks to have children and men seldom do. Everything other than that has always seemed to be cultural rather than biological in my experience. Certainly I have known innumerable very talented engineers who were women. I have also, from personal experience, known many girls who got put off "boy's subjects" at school. IF (and I'm breaking out the capital letters here), there is a biological difference in ability, it's so small as to be utterly inappropriate to make judgements about individuals based on it. And if there's a biological difference that inclines men and women to be interested in different careers independent of ability, then I would stake everything I own on it being far, far less a determinant than cultural factors because I have seen the latter in action repeatedly at school and at university.
>>"OF COURSE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICAL!!!"
Not if the differences you're referring to are roles in society. There culture, history and prejudice apply. And this discussion was about women's roles in society - specifically a career. And you cannot make a supported case that roles in society are solely down to biological differences.
I think actually it's not even about the price so much as the convenience of paying. If I read an assortment of articles on El Reg., if I occasionally follow a link to the Guardian and read an article or two there - I just do those things. Would I "subscribe" or sign up my credit card to these sites? Unlikely.
HOWEVER, what I would happily do is plonk a tenner into a central fund periodically and let sites get half a pence per story or whathaveyou. The only key requirement would be that central fund be something separate from advertising companies that would lust over it for the browsing history information.
For me it's not unwillingness to pay, it's unwillingness to fill out and hand over credit card information for every one of a thousand websites I might randomly visit.
Actually, I'm fine with sites containing adverts. I think it's reasonable that they do! My problems with it are the tracking and also auto-play video (which is irritating by itself, and doubly so if like me you open a row of tabs to queue up what you'll read).
I want the sites I like to make money. I just don't want Google et al. having a big profile of "went to this site at this time, bought product Y last week" for me or having to close pages unread because they're blasting crap into my headphones from half-way down an unopen tab.
Baroness Dido Harding has an absurd amount of personal connections to senior Conservative Party figures and others. She laughed all the way to the bank and suffered no meaningful consequences for any of the debacles of TalkTalk security. I doubt she has much to lament in this regard.
Now if you'd said Dido's lamentable, I don't think anyone could challenge you on that!
In addition to all of the above, it should be noted that the prison industry is worth $4.8bn in the USA per annum. Actual profits (i.e. excluding salaries) are around $700m per annum in return to investors. This creates an enormous incentive to incarcerate people. As felons are also denied their right to vote, that further reduces the ability to fight against the system through normal democratic means.
Prison labour also provides a source of captive labour to be exploited. That makes money for the prison owners and also, as with slavery, suppresses local wages of non-convicts.
We got our first private prisons in the UK in the 1990s and there have been attempts by the government since then to increase the allowance of prison labour. Prisoners can be paid less than £2 per hour.
Whilst it's possible that they only acquired the information that he was a criminal during the convention, the more likely scenario is that they waited until he set foot in the USA because they knew that their evidence would either not be sufficient for the UK's justice system or alternately because it would expose a chain of evidence that was illegal (e.g. warrantless surveillance, unapproved spying on a European country). My money would be on the former, but I'd say either is much more likely than them just suddenly finding out he'd done something whilst there.
So either way, it implies that the USA will not be handing over evidence to us with which to try him. If they had sufficient evidence / such evidence were legally acquired, then we have some pretty generous extradition treaties with the USA that they could have used. Note, I don't know whether he's guilty of wrongdoing or not - I've no way of knowing. But the above does imply there'd be no conviction in the UK.
Somewhere out there, there's a life-form that evolved in an environment heavy with solar winds looking at an Earth-like planet and thinking: 'but with a strong magnetosphere deflecting the solar radiation, life probably never got started'.
If any of those planets are inhabited then the chances of them being at a comparable level of development as ourselves are astronomical. Either they are so far behind they are to us animals, or they are so far ahead as to make US the primitives. The only chance that we are comparably developed is if technological advancement stalls at a certain point and we are already very close to that point. Which would be a depressing thought.
I think your paranoia is unwarranted. Or at the least misdirected. It seems the company that irresponsibly went public with this first actually has some connection with one of Carbon Black's competitors. In either case, anyone who cares about security will, unless there are exceptional circumstances, notify the vendor first and allow time to respond.
>>Horses for courses I suppose.
Horses for main courses, I should think based on previous supermarket behaviour. ;)
Hell of a piece of timing to suddenly get the evidence of him spreading the Kronos trojan just when he visits the USA!
Okay, obviously that was sarcasm. So the question is, if they had evidence already then why couldn't they share it with us before now. The alleged wrong-doing was a few years ago, wasn't it? So two possibilities - it's not enough to secure a conviction under UK or European law. Or they don't want to share the evidence with us and want to be able to convict him without presenting it. There are other possibilities including it's a pretext and it is to do with WannaCry. Wouldn't surprise me. But if it isn't these are the two that spring to mind.
I suppose it's possible he bragged to the wrong person and they got evidence at the conference itself, but that seems a long shot.
So it's been, what, eighteen hours since anybody has heard from him? They took him and he's just vanished from communication? Poor sod - he's probably terrified. And with the USA's history of punishing people for being smarter than them, I wouldn't blame him.
Hope he's alright. I doubt he will be anywhere near as well-disposed to helping people or governments after this.
A forwards slash is a frequent component of both written English and mathematical notation. A backslash is used almost solely for paths and escape characters. Putting the latter on the almost never used backslash rather than on the frequently used forward slash made good, logical sense.
UNIX popularised the wrong thing.
...when they do it. When our government does it though, it will be for our safety.
Sounds to me like T-Systems fucked up and this guy contacted BKK about it (entirely reasonably). Effectively reporting a problem to T-System's employer. Probably the first thing that happened was BKK called up T-Systems and the latter went "Not Us! Evil Hackers!"
But who knows? What was the notice period he gave them before disclosing it publically?
Yes, but if someone tortures information out of me, I know about it. (Else it's not going to work as torture). There's a value in knowing whether your messages have been compromised all of itself.
It's normally polite to apologise if one farts. Or at least it used to be. But it was also presumed people couldn't help it. So why is it considered not rude to release even stronger and more persistent offensive smells that you don't have to? Seems a poor argument by comparison to me - if anything it highlights that vaping IS rude.
At the time I post this, the opening comment is at 80 down and 90 up. That alone indicates that vaping bothers people. I certainly know that I find it very unpleasant to be inhaling clouds of scented nicotine gas from people in an office with me. If it clearly bothers people as much as this - approximately 50% of people just reading this comments section find it offensive, then there is sufficient reason for it to be banned.
>>"My understanding of Mr Slater's creative input was from this 2011 article where he describes leaving his camera on a tripod for a moment and unexpectedly discovering that the animals were using it, taking 100s of photos. He gives a different account later, saying he trained and coaxed them."
They're not different accounts, they're accounts of two different events. The one you refer to is that the monkeys were fiddling around with his camera, intrigued by seeing their reflection in the glass. After this happened, David Slater later set up the camera with the intent of getting them to trigger it themselves, picking out an appropriate lens, putting it on suitable settings, attaching it to a tripod which he remained close to steady and also did the selection and post-work (creative inputs by themselves). It's not changing his story, it's bad reporting conflating two separate incidents. Probably because when this story first broke, a tale of the monkey's running off with his camera and him later finding these photos sounded more entertaining to the journalists or editors.
I think it's generally agreed that you don't get a new copyright by sticking something into a photocopier. Well, most "photography" isn't much different from photocopying.
Massive ignorance on display here. Ignorance of the details of this case and ignorance of photography in general. Study the subject a little before making such stupid statements.
Accidentally and in a public place? Probably not. However, there was little accidental about this photo. The photographer went to a lot of effort financially and creatively to set it up in the hopes of getting one of the monkeys to trigger it and for that to result in a good photograph.
>>Please explain to me what is Marxist about PETA?
Their membership on the whole. They have a very heavy overlap with the extreme Left, core support in Antifa (who again need not be communist but largely are).
>>But I am tired of people using "Marxist" to mean "something indefinite I personally dislike
I'm not and largely don't. However, the GP called them that and I'm just observing that in my experience they actually largely are. It's nothing inherent to PETA's mandate that is Marxist. And certainly nothing to do with Animal Rights as I am a supporter of Animal Rights and am pretty Right Wing. But PETA membership heavily slants that way, ime.
>>"To alter your question... If *I* push the ball down the slope, do I own the copyright, or does the person/monkey who setup the camera?"
It follows creative intent and input. If someone set up some gorgeous shot with a micro-camera of the ball-bearing down on the camera and you merely pushed the ball at some arbitrary time, then clearly the angles, the exposure, plus any post-work such as selection, cropping, colour balance, et al. are all the work of the photographer. They supplied the creative input and intent. This is especially the case if you didn't know about the camera or - as in the monkey's case - didn't know what it was and the exposure, lens, flash, et. al had all been chosen for you.
If your pushing the ball had some creative intent or value. E.g. you saw a woodlouse walking across the path of the ball right in front of the camera and you timed it so that the woodlouse looked up in horror as the ball-bearing rolled towards it Indiana Jones style, then you would have grounds to claim copyright, barring contractual agreements otherwise.
Copyright is to preserve intent and creative input.
I made the same decision over it. I used to contribute yearly to Wikipeda until this. I actually went as far as contacting them to let them know why and got a rather high-handed, morally superior response WIKIsplaining to me why there was no copyright on the picture. An explanation that ignored the actual facts of the matter, as it happens.
A blackly comic note to this would be that if PETA were to win this, then all those Wikimedia proponents who argued that they didn't have to pay licence fees because Slater didn't own the copyright due to the monkey actually being the creator, would now find themselves being sued by PETA for back-usage of the image based on their own arguments.
>>You forgot to say they're also pinko Nazi Commie librul traitors, and any other term you personally don't like.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you challenging someone characterising a group they don't like as "SJW marxists". But honestly this is PETA here and that pretty well describes the majorty of them.
The Wikipedia page on this subject is one of the most obnoxiously smug and faux-neutral things I have ever read. PETA's contention that a monkey owns the copyright is deeply flawed. It would be flawed even were the monkey a human. They present this as an act of will on the monkey's part whilst others present it as simple happenstance rather than intent on the photographer's part. Neither is true.
David Slater travelled around the world specifically for the purpose of nature photography by which he earns his living, spent days being accepted by the monkeys so that they would tolerate his presence. He purchased the equipment, set up the equipment, waited patiently for the right circumstances travelling with the monkeys and deliberately set the camera up so that the monkeys could trigger it. Is copyright not possible on all those nature documentaries where an animal triggers the camera themself? What about where a camera is positioned over a nest or fastened to a bird? Can copyright not exist if the photographer is not physically operating the camera at the time. David Slater went to a LOT of effort to set things up so this would happen. PETA are fanatics who insist animals must be treated as people even to the absurd extent that they must be regarded as taking deliberate, informed actions when obviously they do not - such as the monkey triggering the camera.
Also, as any photographer will tell you, taking a picture is hardly the beginning and end of the work. David Slater went through all the photographs to select appropriate ones (how many of a monkey's feet and leaves do you think were also taken?), cropped and positioned the photograph, did post-work on the photograph (which is an artistic and technical skill in itself), publicised the photograph. I can guarantee that if it were just some raw original with no work by himself, it would not look remotely as good. Copyright covers any creative input to a work, not just clicking a camera button.
But other than that, no, let's assign copyright to a monkey that pressed a button. And that tapir that wandered through a photography trap at night so we could get some wildlife photography of them in their natural habitat? Better track it down and give it a copyright entitlement as well.
The work of nature photographers such as David Slater is a huge help to conservation efforts and animal welfare in that it shares with people around the world the beauty and wonder of nature. But it relies on copyright in order to exist. Nobody just gives him money to do this - he earns his living through it. We should be happy that there exist ways of making your living that actually enrich society rather than just everybody being a lawyer for example. Not punishing it and trying to harm nature photography. David Slater actually travelled around the world to photograph these monkeys to help raise awareness that they were in danger. PETA, by trying to take away his livelihood, directly harms his efforts to save the very monkeys they claim to care about.
Fuck Peta, quite frankly. Authorship depends on the creating input and the provided resource to create the work. The photographer provided both, the monkey neither. Signed (in a hopeless attempt to counterbalance the reputation damage PETA's stunt is causing) -- a vegetarian and supporter of animal welfare.
To be fair, I would prefer he had won the presidency. Wouldn't you? :)
>>"Business is not interested in having VPNs outlawed or made less secure."
VPNs will have to have a justifiable purpose. I.e. if you're a business register your VPN connection and why. If you're a domestic home user, you'll need to justify it and furthermore, given that such laws as this will typically be used retroactively to catch people you want to catch rather than be the reason you catch them, showing that you've used it for illegal purposes will be a crime of itself.
Furthermore, a VPN isn't inherently anonymous. It's just often used for that purpose. A business could have a VPN to some other office. It doesn't mean that you can definitely have a VPN to a popular and legal VPN service. Easy enough to declare VPNs for the purpose of anonymising domestic use illegal and leave business needs untouched. Hard to enforce of course, but then that's not the point, is it? The point is that if the eye of Sauron turns in your direction, it has something to pin on you.
EDIT: Can we have an Eye of Sauron icon for state surveillance? Poor Orwell is looking a bit passé these days given by how far we have actually surpassed what he imagined with his concealed telescreens.
So, the UK government wants to do the following:
• Encourage people to hand over credit card details to porn site operators
• Force people to provide socially embarrassing information to untrusted parties.
• Increase overlap between mild non-standard porn and more serious things such as underage porn and snuff porn by making the mild non-standard porn only available from the same illegal sources as others. Much the same way less harmful drugs can be gateways to more harmful drugs because you have to go to the same people due to criminalisation of the former.
• Declare for other people what is and isn't sexual morality for them.
• Make larger and more legitimate porn sites less desirable than smaller and dodgier ones who can flout the laws.
• Perform extensive and intrusive online surveillance to enforce this. (Ostensibly).
N.b. a couple of the above tie into specific implementations. Namely that May's government is very puritan and believes porn itself is morally wrong.
To those simply saying "VPN", they are correct that it will be trivial to avoid this measure but there are a few further things to keep in mind:
• This is one more move in the chess game. That it doesn't mean check does not mean that it isn't an advance by your opponent that has consequences.
• For a police state, everybody must be guilty so that anybody can be charged at any time. Criminalising common behaviour achieves this and as using a VPN to avoid such checks will undoubtedly be illegal, vast swathes of people will suddenly become "guilty" and thus subject to targetting should there be a reason to find something on them later.
• This will later be used as a justification for outlawing / backdooring VPNs because the very obvious next step is to show that VPNs are being used to access "illegal porn". Why is it illegal? Because the government made it so. That is what we are seeing today.
• The government can still go after the porn companies themselves if they do not implement this. Most would to prevent them losing chunks of a large market like the UK. So will those of other countries. Customers using VPNs will only mitigate this somewhat, not prevent it.
Yeah - the point with a scratched record is that it can get stuck in a loop and keep repeating the same bars over and over. A corrupt file just stops.
I'm not sure any single person can be "a women".
I am certain that uniforms influence behaviour of the wearer. Not only the fact of their presence which is trivial to demonstrate affects behaviour, but the style and colour of the uniform. Dress people up like Gestapo and both they and the people they interact with will treat them differently from if their uniform resembled a museum assistant.
Ben Elton once suggested that we should make the police wear pink as it would help make things less confrontational and aggressive.
>>With regard to Windows PowerShell: I must be very, very dumb, because I don't understand it. Or else Windows & MSFT did not ever explain it properly.
What do you mean they didn't explain it properly? They are obviously not going to come around to your house and sit down with diagrams. There are a number of good books and sites on Powershell. Which have you read / frequented? MS provided a lot of resources for those who are interested.
>>I do not know what "very standard object orientated interface and scripting approaches" actually means.
It means they are consistent from tool to tool. So if you want to turn an array of objects to a CSV table (attributes become columns), then you can use ConvertTo-CSV. If you want to convert the array to HTML, you can use ConvertTo-HTML and if you want to convert it to JSON objects you can use ConvertTo-JSON. And that's a trivial example, it goes beyond that into consistency of parameters and usage across a very wide range of tools. So you will see common and consistent parameters across like tools such as -DisplayError. That's what is meant by standardised interface. It means the elements you learn once you can reliably use again elsewhere. Ditto for language syntax.
>>I do remember what I could figure out all by myself: DOS 3 up to DOS 6.22, when the "help system" actually did help
DOS is hardly comparable to Powershell which has features including Exception handling, fan-out remoting and more. Also, DOS never had hover over descriptions of what every command did along with a list of acceptable parameters and their types, iirc.
>>So let me ask you again: What is the "object" of "object oriented programming"? To me it is sheer and utter mean-spirited and unnecessary obfuscation, without any good explanation available anywhere.
Object orientation allows for more flexibility and simplicity. Nearly every part of the Windows OS is exposed as an object. Therefore nearly every part of it can be managed from Powershell scripts. The modularity afforded by object orientation allows easy combining of distinct tools and adherence to the UNIX principle of 'do one thing and do it well'. For example, if I want to output a list of files and their attributes, I can take the output of ls which is an array of file and directory objects and pipe it to a tool such as ConvertTo-CSV and the latter tool will work fine because it simply uses the attributes of the passed in objects. Later, I might want to output a list of security settings and I can pipe it to the same tool (ConvertTo-CSV) and it will all just work because it's arriving as an array of objects just as before. The receiving tool doesn't need to know how to parse a list of file paths. It doesn't need to know anything about security settings. It simply accepts and works with an array of objects whatever they may be. No text mangling, no special coding. All just OO niceness.
>>Anyone who tells me different is a paid lackey of MSFT. Essentially, MSFT destroyed "personal computing" as much as possible, preventing people from fixing their own, making their own, deciding what goes on their own computers. I hate them for this.
Yeah, no. I built my own computer, I'm comfortable working around in it. I honestly don't think, based on your post, that you've taken the time to really learn how Windows works.
>>I do still remember Noel Edmonds taking the piss, starting a competing organisation he called DENSA for those who weren't smart enough,
Fun fact: DENSA and MENSA actually organized a wine and cheese party to meet each other once.
MENSA forgot the cheese. (True story!)
I thought the extra thumb was marvellous. I loved that it appeared to be managed by sensors on the other fingers to provide a degree of independent movement in lieu of actual never connections. Genius, imo.
Shame it had to be accompanied by the inevitable pan-pipe and drum machine soundtrack, mind you.
>>"That's a logical fallacy. Open source is a defense against security flaws, but the protection it offers is not absolute (life's funny that way, not offering very many absolutes)."
I really don't think that in practice it is a defence. Proprietary / Open Source are as likely or unlikely to be bug free as each other because the deciding factors are the number of developers, age of code base, pace of development, code review practices... And none of these are determined or even significantly influenced by the Propriety / Open Source split.
What Open Source protects against is not bugs but deliberate subversion. It is a great deal harder to hide backdoors in Open Source than in Closed Source. Massively so. THAT is what Open Source provides (well, along with surety of future availability), not protection against bugs. The latter is just a sales pitch by the over-enthusiastic.
And then you could begin on the next great technological break though - stopping!
Docker is Open Source software contributed to by parties around the world. It is actually French in origin, as well, not American. It is meant to be free for all. And yet we have governments telling us who we can share it with.
I mean, the USA can't actually enforce this, but the principle pisses me off.
>>I made no morale judgement, just merely pointed out the practice is widespread in all fields. Of course it should not continue but if AO wishes to tackle this issue then it should be addressed in a broader context otherwise the scope is somewhat narrow and appears churlish.
Making overly-broad statements doesn't effect change. Specifically trying to chip away at parts of the problem can. And trying to stop one bad thing does not preclude trying to stop a different bad thing. It is normal and efficient for people to expose corruption in the area they work in. Would you equally chastise someone in the defence industry exposing wrongdoing by BAE for not publicising corruption in the pharmaceutical industry? The longer one thinks about what you wrote, the more it appears to be an attempt to deflect criticism or corrective action from Google.
And exposing such things is especially important when we're talking about the ability to manipulate public perception. A company lobbying a politician to vote a certain way is bad enough, and should be stopped. But at least you can say "that is a corrupt politician". A company manipulating academic studies and in control of public perception through search results and popularising or obfuscating particular articles or videos (e.g. YouTube), is in an even more powerful position than politicians.
Bringing this to people's attention is vital.
these companies can change people's perception of the world they live in.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018