On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
It's a Canadian court though, so if the spying was done outside the US (and thus almost certainly illegal in the country where it happened) that might help her case.
I wonder if it might help her avoid extradition. Seems like a good argument that she won't get a fair trial now that they admitted some of the evidence is secret and may hand been obtained illegally.
I thought everyone knew this. When you apply for a loan they want to know how long you have been in your current job, because in the first six months probation period it's easier to fire you... Oh wait, it's America, you have no employment rights.
This is actually something we should fix in the UK. Ban considering how long you have been in your job for when applying for a loan, because it discourages people from changing jobs. Make sure credit reference agencies can't report it.
They aren't. Not sure where you got that from... The law says that political ads must be properly attributed.
The ads in question are just encouraging people to vote and don't count under the wording of the law. They are not partisan or attempting to influence the vote in any way, merely encouraging participation.
Twitter just doesn't want the hassle of verifying the identities of people buying political ads, the lazy buggers.
Oh no, you suggested that the government might be good at something! No wonder someone modded you "-1 troll", I mean there mere suggestion that the government isn't utterly incompetent and corrupt is offensive and triggering.
Unless the CEO is personally going to pay the fine out of their own pocket, jail time is the only effective deterrent.
Otherwise they will just ignore security, rake in the quarterly bonus on slightly higher profits and then bail out with their fortune when there is a breech.
I'd require mandatory insurance against data breeches. The insurance companies will ensure good practice and audits take place. In the event of a breech the CEO will either be a genuine victim of a sophisticated attack that could not reasonably have been prevented, or guilty of insurance fraud and/or negligence.
Even if there is no criminal case the insurance company will sue them into oblivion if they didn't act responsibly.
Actually no, that would not comply with GDPR and is not what Google does.
Under GDPR it is not allowed to tie provision of services use of personal data that is not essential to providing said services. In other words you can't be forced to agree to non-essential processing just to use Google search.
Google displays a box asking you to review your privacy settings. If you ignore it, they legally can't use your data for non-essential purposes. It has to be opt-in. Eventually they will create a pop-over, but you can still click "remind me later".
They really want you to agree of course, but can't force you too.
Probably just a garden variety fuck-up. Like when Apple accidentally published the private signing key for their battery firmware, allowing anyone to create a malicious update that permanently backdoored the machine and could not be removed without tearing the laptop apart. Or the infamous GOTO FAIL bug.
Or how about Intel's Management Engine flaws, which similarly allow an attacker to permanently pwn the machine?
Maybe they were all NSA implants into the codebase. The GOTO FAIL one looks particularly suspicious. But there is also a high probability that they are just human error.
It is dumb, although not because of the real/fake issue.
What is the goal here? Surely it's to prevent people becoming either radicalized or traumatized. In either case, the danger is rarely from people posting this kind of extreme content, it's from less extreme stuff that leads them to it. So they aren't even targeting the right thing.
Not that is has much hope of working anyway. In the wake of the Christchurch far-right terror attack Facebook removed over a million copies of the terrorist's video. The problem is not extremists posting this stuff, it's ordinary people reposting it.
So what happens now? Facebook gets a report and investigates it. Facebook sends over a million reports to the police, most of them about 14 year old 4chan edge-lords.
The Aussie government really doesn't understand the internet or computers.
What's the point of inspecting your products when they arrive from the Chinese factory when your own government just intercepts them during shipment to customers/vendors and installs malware? The US was caught red handed doing that, and pretty much nothing has been done about it.
Also security issues have no repercussions for any of these big tech companies. Dozens of celebrities' private photos were stolen from Apple's servers, didn't touch their stock price. Sony deliberately installed malware on people's computers, and hardly anyone even heard of it at the time.
Some stock exchanges uses miles and miles of coiled up fibre to slow down trading for people located physically near by, to put everyone on a level playing field.
According to the French government (quoted in the link) Twitter is not complying with the law at all, they are just doing it to try to force the government to back down.
It is of course up to Twitter if they want to try that, but I doubt it's going to work. Give it a few months and they will have set up an office to handle this stuff, since political tweets are a significant source of revenue.
That said, it is actually well understood that violent imagery does cause violence in some people, i.e. those with under-developed mental tools to process and understand such things, e.g. children. There is a scientific, well researched reason for having an 18 certificate on some movies, for example.
Facebook might be been in a better position if it had made the minimum age 18, but instead it made it 13 so now has to make sure everything on there is suitable for a 13 year old audience.
Amazon Basics is fine, it's the secret brands that Amazon owns but doesn't publicize that are the problem. You think they are real companies but they are just Amazon rebadging OEM stuff.
They do it to create the illusion of choice and make people think they are getting something better than the Amazon Basics model.
If they were honest it would be fine, it's the deception that is the problem.
It depends on the app and how well the developer built it. Some apps work fine on a Chromebook, for example.
We are slowly headed for realizing the old Java dream of running the same app everywhere. There are already a number of frameworks that let you run the same code on Android, iOS and desktop. This is coming from the other direction, adding an Android compatibility layer to other systems.
I don't meant you hate men, I mean you bring up man-hating all the time.
I mean what is the man-hating angle here? Some Google employees are upset because an org that campaigns against LGBTQ rights is part of the ethics board. Why did you even bring it up again?
Are they people who are already prone to conspiratorial thinking and being bolshie, or were they made that way when they fell down the anti-vax rabbit hole and got "radicalized"?
A journalist in the UK did test that was only semi-serious, but which had interesting results. He cut out all sources of news except for the Daily Mail. He reported feeling more paranoid and being more angry after a month of exposure, having come to view all sorts of groups with suspicion and hostility.
I guess it's easier to have a nice big antenna on a ship. Aircraft need to consider aerodynamics and increased fuel consumption when attaching anything like that.
If you can have a nice big antenna you can use lower frequency, longer range signals and avoid the need for expensive satellite comms. Or you could have fewer satellites to get the same coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, perhaps they just decided hat the "mob" was right and they had made a bad decision, and fixed it.
Carrying on with your plan even after it becomes obvious that it's fundamentally flawed is silly. Not listening to people because they disagree with you or because you already made a decision is also pretty dumb, e.g. see Teresa May.
It's a Canadian court though, so if the spying was done outside the US (and thus almost certainly illegal in the country where it happened) that might help her case.
I wonder if it might help her avoid extradition. Seems like a good argument that she won't get a fair trial now that they admitted some of the evidence is secret and may hand been obtained illegally.
Is a trade off between better info for making decisions and the negative effect of discouraging people not to switch jobs.
I thought everyone knew this. When you apply for a loan they want to know how long you have been in your current job, because in the first six months probation period it's easier to fire you... Oh wait, it's America, you have no employment rights.
This is actually something we should fix in the UK. Ban considering how long you have been in your job for when applying for a loan, because it discourages people from changing jobs. Make sure credit reference agencies can't report it.
They aren't. Not sure where you got that from... The law says that political ads must be properly attributed.
The ads in question are just encouraging people to vote and don't count under the wording of the law. They are not partisan or attempting to influence the vote in any way, merely encouraging participation.
Twitter just doesn't want the hassle of verifying the identities of people buying political ads, the lazy buggers.
Maybe this myth that China is Communist will finally die now.
Oh no, you suggested that the government might be good at something! No wonder someone modded you "-1 troll", I mean there mere suggestion that the government isn't utterly incompetent and corrupt is offensive and triggering.
Unless the CEO is personally going to pay the fine out of their own pocket, jail time is the only effective deterrent.
Otherwise they will just ignore security, rake in the quarterly bonus on slightly higher profits and then bail out with their fortune when there is a breech.
I'd require mandatory insurance against data breeches. The insurance companies will ensure good practice and audits take place. In the event of a breech the CEO will either be a genuine victim of a sophisticated attack that could not reasonably have been prevented, or guilty of insurance fraud and/or negligence.
Even if there is no criminal case the insurance company will sue them into oblivion if they didn't act responsibly.
Actually no, that would not comply with GDPR and is not what Google does.
Under GDPR it is not allowed to tie provision of services use of personal data that is not essential to providing said services. In other words you can't be forced to agree to non-essential processing just to use Google search.
Google displays a box asking you to review your privacy settings. If you ignore it, they legally can't use your data for non-essential purposes. It has to be opt-in. Eventually they will create a pop-over, but you can still click "remind me later".
They really want you to agree of course, but can't force you too.
Probably just a garden variety fuck-up. Like when Apple accidentally published the private signing key for their battery firmware, allowing anyone to create a malicious update that permanently backdoored the machine and could not be removed without tearing the laptop apart. Or the infamous GOTO FAIL bug.
Or how about Intel's Management Engine flaws, which similarly allow an attacker to permanently pwn the machine?
Maybe they were all NSA implants into the codebase. The GOTO FAIL one looks particularly suspicious. But there is also a high probability that they are just human error.
It is dumb, although not because of the real/fake issue.
What is the goal here? Surely it's to prevent people becoming either radicalized or traumatized. In either case, the danger is rarely from people posting this kind of extreme content, it's from less extreme stuff that leads them to it. So they aren't even targeting the right thing.
Not that is has much hope of working anyway. In the wake of the Christchurch far-right terror attack Facebook removed over a million copies of the terrorist's video. The problem is not extremists posting this stuff, it's ordinary people reposting it.
So what happens now? Facebook gets a report and investigates it. Facebook sends over a million reports to the police, most of them about 14 year old 4chan edge-lords.
The Aussie government really doesn't understand the internet or computers.
What's the point of inspecting your products when they arrive from the Chinese factory when your own government just intercepts them during shipment to customers/vendors and installs malware? The US was caught red handed doing that, and pretty much nothing has been done about it.
Also security issues have no repercussions for any of these big tech companies. Dozens of celebrities' private photos were stolen from Apple's servers, didn't touch their stock price. Sony deliberately installed malware on people's computers, and hardly anyone even heard of it at the time.
Some stock exchanges uses miles and miles of coiled up fibre to slow down trading for people located physically near by, to put everyone on a level playing field.
https://youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4
According to the French government (quoted in the link) Twitter is not complying with the law at all, they are just doing it to try to force the government to back down.
It is of course up to Twitter if they want to try that, but I doubt it's going to work. Give it a few months and they will have set up an office to handle this stuff, since political tweets are a significant source of revenue.
First: I don't support this law at all.
That said, it is actually well understood that violent imagery does cause violence in some people, i.e. those with under-developed mental tools to process and understand such things, e.g. children. There is a scientific, well researched reason for having an 18 certificate on some movies, for example.
Facebook might be been in a better position if it had made the minimum age 18, but instead it made it 13 so now has to make sure everything on there is suitable for a 13 year old audience.
Amazon Basics is fine, it's the secret brands that Amazon owns but doesn't publicize that are the problem. You think they are real companies but they are just Amazon rebadging OEM stuff.
They do it to create the illusion of choice and make people think they are getting something better than the Amazon Basics model.
If they were honest it would be fine, it's the deception that is the problem.
It depends on the app and how well the developer built it. Some apps work fine on a Chromebook, for example.
We are slowly headed for realizing the old Java dream of running the same app everywhere. There are already a number of frameworks that let you run the same code on Android, iOS and desktop. This is coming from the other direction, adding an Android compatibility layer to other systems.
Good news for lazy developers I guess.
I don't meant you hate men, I mean you bring up man-hating all the time.
I mean what is the man-hating angle here? Some Google employees are upset because an org that campaigns against LGBTQ rights is part of the ethics board. Why did you even bring it up again?
Always about man hating with you.
Satire is mocking something that really happened. You just made a strawman so you could have a rant.
Or use a VPN. Mulvad is 5 Euro a month, and gets around all kinds of commercial/political/geographic blocking.
Are they people who are already prone to conspiratorial thinking and being bolshie, or were they made that way when they fell down the anti-vax rabbit hole and got "radicalized"?
A journalist in the UK did test that was only semi-serious, but which had interesting results. He cut out all sources of news except for the Daily Mail. He reported feeling more paranoid and being more angry after a month of exposure, having come to view all sorts of groups with suspicion and hostility.
I guess it's easier to have a nice big antenna on a ship. Aircraft need to consider aerodynamics and increased fuel consumption when attaching anything like that.
If you can have a nice big antenna you can use lower frequency, longer range signals and avoid the need for expensive satellite comms. Or you could have fewer satellites to get the same coverage.
I'm just guessing.
Isn't this what browsers are now? A VM that web apps run in, safely isolated from the rest of the system?