Re: Esp. One-Liners
Was thinking the same thing. Only case I can think of is if he doesn't read emails unless his secretary prints them off for him first
676 posts • joined 13 May 2013
GOG's model is pretty good actually, you can build up a library of games that you can store locally, but essentially have backed up online if you delete them by accident. Also any updates to the software get provided through the same download system as the game itself. Not quite as straight-forward as Steam since you need to download patch installers, but the good pricing and the lack of restrictions which go with Steam make it a really nice platform to buy from
I'm curious whether the starbuck next door has the right to interfere with the Marriott's wifi network in the same way because the network signal is able to be picked up there.
I get that the idea of someone faking being the Marriott's network can put other guests at risk (by setting up a man in the middle attack with it), but unless they clearly state that they're going to be blocking any wifi networks other than their own before people book hotel rooms and conferences, this doesn't seem like a reasonable approach
Er, not sure when you last used *NIX systems, but there's the options of group permissions so that users in the correct group have full access to features and those who aren't are restricted, as well as the usual kind of password prompt for things which require admin access. It might potentially take a bit more work setting up some things, but for most things you'd be doing with it the system works pretty well
Techically there's never *been* a fully fledged free market capitalist society. All markets have some degree of influence or manipulation by governments, even if it's just regulating what can be traded legally (since this pushes up the risk and the reward of trading such goods beyond what pure supply and demand would) and government granted monopolies (copyright, patents and trademarks)
As a feature it was introduced fairly early on in the Kickstarter process and on several occasions the developers asserted to people who were asking if offline was available (because they didn't want an online only game) that they were going to do it. For anyone buying after the point this was added it classes as a bait and switch.
To take your analogy, it's more like buying a ticket to a rock music festival because they announced that a band you're a big fan of has been added to the lineup doing a one-time support act at the festival. You might go and watch the other acts, but you bought the ticket because they announced that this band in particular was playing. Then in the middle of the festival (to parallel the whole playable alpha phase) they announce that the band isn't going to be playing after all because it was decided they didn't fit the theme of the festival after all. Since this band was the reason you bought the ticket you go to get a refund, and they state that because you watched the other acts while waiting for the band you went to see you're not entitled to a refund anymore
The point of the police cameras is supposed to be to hold the police accountable, they're expected to video any encounters with the public so there's evidence of what happened during it.
Also, even if people do things illegally, they can be punished when caught. The whole point of this is that they're trying to make something legal despite it being in conflict with the rights EU citizens are supposed to have, resulting in far reduced legal protections for us. For example, a while back Facebook was required to start doing data dumps of the data they stored on EU users when those users requested it because EU privacy law required it, even though they didn't want to be giving that kind of data to their users. While yes data can be lost or illegally shared, when caught users can hold companies to account as long as the law is on their side. This is an attempt to move the law more over to the side of the companies side, in spite of the rights of the users
It mentions the USA because this part of the trade agreement was most likely *introduced* by US companies who want to be able to host EU citizen data (currently the US isn't considered to have sufficient privacy protections for this). As such, including the USA in the headline makes sense since the clause being discussed largely *is* limited to 1 signatory to the trade agreement, very few others have any reason to add it and I don't think any others have enough clout to get this kind of thing added
Considering GCHQ is more than happy to pipe every bit of data they can over to US officials, the EU privacy laws are a large part of what *protects* us from this kind of agreement. Also Westminster has always supported this kind of bill, and supported the previous incarnations too
Consulates aren't actually considered foreign soil, that's just a rule of thumb used to explain a much more complicated legal standard to the lay person. If it were foreign soil, the host country telling ambassadors to get lost and then taking it over would be a declaration of war and invasion of foreign soil, which it isn't.
Whether the data would be protected would very much depend on the host country's legal protections for ambassadors and their communications, and also whether they would actually follow those legal protections. Also, since the servers wouldn't actually be on foreign soil any company hosting there could still be forced to divulge the data
"Hood said that he was "calling a time out, so that cooler heads may prevail," and will be seeking a conference with Google's legal team to resolve the situation."
"Don't be silly, of course that isn't evidence of wrong doing on our part. Now lets just sit down and talk about this without any ridiculous legal action... like the kind we took out against you"
"hile he's wasting his days playing inconsequential little games, he's not doing what most politicians do: devising bad laws that neither achieve their intended purpose nor are tight enough to stop their loopholes being exploited."
That would imply them spending a period more than one day coming up with the laws, I suspect that's not very likely
Insurance companies have been pushing for this kind of box to be attached to cars for at least a few years now. It doesn't sound like it records everything they'd want, since they want to have evidence of you speeding before the accident and such, but could certainly be expanded to incorporate that "so we can investigate what causes crashes"
I'm curious where they get their information for this study from. Of the last 4 places I've stayed (in as many years, and 2 in a city centre), only 1 has had cable access. With the other 3 I've been told by the cable company that it was available until I went through the order process and gave them the full address rather than just postcode, at which point it stopped being available. If they're just going by the same postcode data the providers use then they could be over-estimating the number who can get more than 5mbps by quite a bit
As I understand it, the NK approach to internal security is less "if we catch you breaking the rules then you're fired" and more "if we suspect you of breaking the rules then your families will be shot". Even if someone *was* willing to risk their family's lives, the risk of someone calling them out would be much higher than it would in a similar organisation outside NK
That's going to be fiddly to work with though, they're going to have to be *really* careful about how the define "diverted profits" since we're really talking about companies purchasing something from other companies which happen to be subsidiaries of the same parent. Hopefully they'll find a way to deal with it, but with their track record I can't see it going well
I think you're talking about the dousing rods which ended up in Iraq, those were sold to the Iraqi army for finding explosives. These are bomb detection kits the MOD supplied to the British army and which had a 90% failure rate (in that around 90% were faulty and wouldn't pick anything up) and were geared specifically to finding IEDs rather than explosives in general (the dousing rods were used for border checks)
Nice to see they included some Scottish <span class="strike">pubs</span> locations, although I'm curious what testing was done in Wales and N. Ireland. More rural areas could be interesting too, I'd be curious how UK mobile networks in less built up areas compared with that in the rest of Europe since coverage is something that's been made a priority here
Both of them have been pretty up front that Jamie has never really been comfortable in front of a camera. He's gotten used to it on Mythbusters, but since this isn't being done by the same team he probably just feels awkward again. Adam on the other hand is constantly doing public speaking events and is much more comfortable learning lines like this. And frankly, as ads go, this is pretty in-line with the kind of stuff they do anyway, so at least the ad isn't out of character
Usually that kind of weirdness comes from compounded acronyms. so they probably started off with the Transition Service, which was abbreviated to TS, then they had the Enhanced Transition Service, ETC and now they're building the Enhanced Transition Service Enhancements, ETSE. They wouldn't have used the full name when naming it though, it would be the Enhanced TS, then the ETS Enhancements, and the weirdness only appears after you state the full name
How could they possibly know this with all the encryption people are using now? It's inconceivable!
Anyway, this really does stink of them trying to use OMG TERRORISM to get their way, either pushing the banks to tighten their security or stronger anti-terrorism laws with regards to the internet. And as for Iran getting involved, I wasn't aware that there were any ties between the UK and Stuxnet in the first place. Surely it would be the NYSE they would target rather than LSE?
1) You talked about evidence, got any evidence that the majority of the protestors are actually lnked to the Black Panthers? Tying people in Ferguson to the Watts riots is some pretty serious hyperbole considering it's been a fairly peaceful protest on the part of the protestors so far
2) Yes, an outside group trying to instigate violence between the protestors and police is wrong, although if your first point is correct it's somewhat pointless since most of the people they try and instigate will already be involved in another group rather than just protesting
3) That's a bit bizarre that his blood would be found in the car considering his only injuries were from gunshots and the autopsy showed they were done at range, not point blank as would be if he were trying to enter the vehicle. Also those on Brown's side of this claim the officer was trying to pull him into the car, so his fingerprints being there wouldn't be surprising. Besides, this "evidence" was leaked by an unnamed source, so isn't necessarily reliable
4) Not sure what the relevance of the shoplifting/robbery incident has (it's disputed which it classes as) since as you point out, it didn't happen on the same day. If "state of mind" refers to drugs though the autopsy didn't find anything except traces of thc, so he'd had weed at some point in the month before the shooting. Nothing else found, and that wouldn't increase aggression.
Even if you put all that aside though, is it proportional force for a police officer to shoot someone who is unarmed and, according to the autopsy, not within melee range a half dozen times, killing them?
From what the Microsoft life cycle data sheet for 2003 says, I don't think there even *are* any OS patches for it any more, and haven't been since 2009.
Also back in 2007 they had a large chunk of their users passwords stolen because someone found a way into the server they stored them in plain text, which according to them was common practice for web hosting companies "for customer service"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019