It's essentially impossible that Trump continued and reaffirmed a policy started by Obama. This can't be correct.
3439 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Law is a funny thing. If I remember correctly, if you have a safe with a key, the police can force you to give up the key; but if the safe has a combination, they cannot force you to reveal the combination, because that would be forcing you to testify against yourself, which is forbidden by the fifth amendment...
To make sure users are properly informed, how about this: Every time you access Facebook, a small window shows up on the screen titled "Your privacy". Follows a small text of a few sentences explaining that Facebook might be using your data to improve your experience. You can click on "OK", or on "More information" to get the complete picture of what is going on.
Don't you think that this will solve the problem once and for all?
It's pretty much irrelevant, as drugs are not flowing through the places where the wall would be built. In fact, neither are illegal immigrants.
The whole thing is largely symbolic. The money Trump asked wouldn't be enough to build the wall in the first place; but it would allow him to claim victory. It would allow him to claim the wall has been built (even if incomplete, useless and unmaintainable). That's why it's so important to Trump. And that's also why the Democrats are opposing it so much, even though when you come to it, it's a relatively small amount of money.
The UK politics are in a crisis right now, but at least the stakes are huge. It's pretty much the most important decision the country will take for decades. In comparison, the US is fighting over who gets to sit by the window.
I don't think we can say that Congress should roll over for any campaign promise. The idea that Trump got elected because he promised the wall is already itself very flawed; you cannot assume that all the people who voted for him actually want the wall.
I've seen the argument that Trump was mostly elected because he promised not to be Hillary Clinton, and because he promised to belong to the Republican party.
It's hilarious to read the comments on the appleinsider article, from the people complaining that allowing Android phones to scan the NFC chip of your passport is a terrible security hole that will inevitably cause mass privacy leaks, to those saying "they should have used a QR code instead".
The only other article I could find on the subject (Grauniad) has the title: "Man withdraws 'right to be forgotten' case against Google".
There's no telling what happened and if money exchanged hands, but I find it interesting how different the two titles sound, even though they convey the same basic information.
found the right amount to shut him up before a judge could lay in with a decision that might hurt Google long term more than losing the case would.
Why would Google even be hurt by losing the case? The only thing it would mean is that they would have to remove the results, just like they did in the other case that they lost on first ruling.
These lawsuits are case-by-case, they're not going to be used as precedent to create new consumer rights. Winning or losing them means nothing to Google, except maybe feedback on what requests they should accept before they go to court.
As for "Justice has no say", if you read the story and read the previous articles, you'd know that there was already a ruling, and the decision was taken, without particularly interesting arguments.
Make no mistake, Google crippling GSuite on iPad is absolutely intentional. They can singlehandedly propel the narrative that MobileSafari isn't a good browser, especially in businesses and education.
Err... You mean that people in charge of the GSuite, who have quite serious competitors of their own, deliberately made their own product slower in order to help Chrome defend its massive market share from Safari? Seriously?
First, leverage goes the other way. You can use your position of strength to push your weak products, not the other way round.
Second, you should stop thinking that everything is always about you, fanboy. Google is very worried about Amazon and Microsoft these days. Apple? not so much.
Hunting rifles are generally not very useful to perpetrate or prevent crimes, and the vast majority of countries allow hunting, though often license the activity and regulate it. And as in this case, punish violators.
I think the US gun laws are generally crazy, but it would be fairly ridiculous to ban hunting in the country.
Disagree. Terrorists use random attacks to make the whole population fear they could get attacked at any time. The goal is to spread terror and influence the public opinion though intimidation. Unless there is this element of influencing a larger amount of people, it's not terrorism. That's why terrorists don't generally announce specific targets, because it removes the fear that anybody could get attacked at any time.
Making threats and demanding money is just extortion.
It's interesting to see fairly important rules being decided to resolve case after case. Right now, it does feel like a lot is still undecided and constantly changing.
I would hope that in time, you could say with certainty that this or that is legal, but I'm not holding my breath.
PH icon, because it is a public figure whose representation is used for satirical purposes in this context, and therefore allowed under ruling 78290-λ of the ECJ. Or something.
I started with bluetooth earbuds a couple of weeks ago; I have to say it's easier to get used to it than I thought it would be. Because of the lack of long wires, it's much simpler to carry them around wherever you go. When I forget to charge them, I'll probably curse the world for the rest of the day, but so far I don't miss the wires.
The only issue I can see is that wireless headphones are so convenient that a lot more people isolate themselves from the world while commuting or having coffee. I'll quote the mandatory relevant XKCD
I did think while reading the article that this data dump would probably not displease Six4Three.
It was probably strictly forbidden for them to just disclose the data themselves. However, they might have let slip that their exec would have the data with him while traveling to the UK. Then of course, if the data was seized, there's nothing they could do prevent it, right?
After all, nobody would dream of taking to the US a laptop full of data known to be of interest to the US government... Unless they wanted the US government to have it.
Instead, Apple tells customers that they must replace the entire screen, at a cost exceeding $600, apparently in order to increase Apple’s profits at the expense of the customer
I agree that's probably more or less what they do (with the caveat that maybe sometimes the cheap fix would not work), but then what? They are treating customers like cash cows? Yeah, they are. You think it's scummy? Be my guest. But suing a company for doing that feels daft. Have they considered suing luxury brands for selling items at ten times the cost of production?
I use Apple devices precisely because you can only buy from one place and you know the apps will work.
Sure. But why do you have to pay 30% extra for that?
The problem is the markup. It might be convenient to you that there is only one place you can buy from, but from a different viewpoint, it's also a very convenient way for Apple to force people to overpay.
Other app stores have started reducing their markups for some of their inventory, and the fact that Apple hasn't done the same does hint that users are paying more than they have to.
The GUI should be a metaphor for the physical world.
I strenuously object.
Maybe people thought that skeuomorphic design was a good idea when computers were new and users were terrified of using new concepts. But by now, imitating the physical world is more a limitation than anything.
Though I do agree that we need a better word than click, if only because nowadays people mostly tap.
The fake death story is funny and all, yes. But what's more interesting to me is this:
The feds apparently used the fact that border agents can search laptops without a warrant to fish for evidence.
While you are in the US, the police generally need a warrant to search for your things. At the border, border agents apparently can do whatever they want, even if it is completely unrelated to assessing whether you are entering the country legally or not.
I read that the current Bitcoin price of $6000 is just above the average cost to mine one.
Of course, that depends a lot on how much you pay for electricity. The fact that miners are agressively looking into places where power is cheap is a pretty solid hint that they don't get a huge margin.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019