Alan Turing is busy programming a Colossus 1000, finishes, waits the the lightbulbs to flicker, and runs out excitedly straight into the Guiness Book of Records offices.
"I've done it! I've used a computer to calculate Pi! It's.... about 3. It's just one digit so far, but with a more powerful computer, we could get this down to two, or even three, decimal places!"
And that's how the world record was initially set.
like the Daily Mail managed to single handedly destroy a similar attempt at reform in the 1990s
* in the UK.
Sorry, I had that part written in my head but somehow it never hit the keyboard.
As an aside: Slashdot really needs a clarification mode to give people the chance to correct their own comments. The "You're banned from writing anything in response to your own comment because you posted it less than a minute ago" thing is fucking stupid.
America already incarcerates more people than anyone else by quite a margin.
While this is technically true, the GP was talking about incarcerating more rich people. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that the rich are being imprisoned either as much, or for as long, as poor people. You could triple the number of rich people imprisoned without it making a blip on the US incarceration rate.
Fines? Here's the thing. Let's suppose we make it proportional to income, and we make the fine for doing X 90% of one year of income. Do you think the single mother on $25,000 a year will be impacted by this less or equally compared to Warren Buffet? (Not implying the latter has done anything deserving of being fined, just adding him as generic rich person that doesn't seem to be overly controversial right now)
The latter will go "Ouch, now I only have $X million to live on this year, I may even have to borrow some money", the former will go bankrupt, probably go to prison, and have her kids taken away.
We could probably do with an alternative to both prison and fines, but merely making fines proportional to wealth isn't going to fix anything. Indeed, it might even make things worse - like subpar healthcare reform, for example, it may merely delay real reform, and in the mean time the rich will find ways to wiggle out of it, like the Daily Mail managed to single handedly destroy a similar attempt at reform in the 1990s by encouraging poor and middle income people to hide their incomes, publicizing the absurdly high default fines they got as a result.
Yeah, I was going to say "Researchers from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology teamed up with colleagues from the U.S. and Switzerland and returned the state of a quantum computer a fraction of a second into the past" sounds like they've done an experiment that'll leave them very impressed when they find what an Action Replay expansion could do with a Sinclair Spectrum back in the 1980s.
Oh and Slashdot doesn't let you post certain words, so I guess you feel oppressed here too.
Tell me about it. The other day I tried to use a synonym for chortle and it got stuck in the lameness filter. It took me a second to register why (the lameness filter doesn't, alas, tell you why your comment is lame, and I initially was looking all over for too much punctuation before it dawned on me...)
This is all true, but actually what most of us want is something simple, not the all singing all dancing "Show me some pictures of ShanghaiBill in the nude" thing that Hey Google can do.
Specifically 90% of us would prefer it if CALL <contact-name> AT <location-type-eg-cell-or-home-or-work> was one of a small number of commands pressing the button on your bluetooth actually recognized.
Unfortunately, Google's insistence on making it more complex than that means the ability to voice dial has been completely fucked up. Bugs in it, such as it redirecting to the wrong audio device for the call itself, have never been fixed, presumably because the resources are elsewhere. Every few months the entire thing stops working because you're supposed to accept some new terms and conditions that it won't speak to you. At one point it would try to match your contact name with any vaguely related contact name and then give you options: "Call bill" would result in "Do you mean? Call Bill at home, Call William Defoe at home. Call William Defoe at work. Call William Tell at work. Call Will Smith on mobile. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!" (Session ends, no way to actually select one of these options, and it was fucking obvious which option was the right one in the first place.)
And of course, it stops working altogether when you have no data connection available, or if the data available is congested or just unreliable.
No-one, other than the marketing team at Google, has ever asked for an AI to handle basic voice commands on phones. Google tries to do too much, which makes their service objectively less useful than the voice dialing feature on flip phones around 2004.
I'm guessing it has nothing to do with that and was a very reluctant decision, mostly based around Microsoft wanting developers to adopt DirectX12 and finding that impossible as long as it wasn't supported on Windows 7. I don't think it has anything to do with them believing Windows 7 will be around for one month or one century.
They'd have ported it to XP if it was easy, but in practice porting to 7 was probably trivial, as Windows 10 and Windows 7 aren't that different underneath (at least, for this kind of thing, whereas anything pre-Vista has to deal with significantly different under-the-hood APIs.)
To be fair, the article doesn't say they're getting rid of it, just that they want an understanding of how it's used. It could be they're experimenting with a more efficient alternative - which wouldn't be a bad thing. Well, it's Microsoft so it probably would be a bad thing, but that's because they're probably not experimenting with a more efficient alternative, but a less efficient alternative. Like the entire Desktop is now going to have The Ribbon or something.
About 50% of gas stations on this side of the pond charge 10-20c less per gallon for cash payments. That said, I suspect the reasoning is as much about getting customers to walk into the store, where they might be tempted to buy something (which is where the real money is made) as it is to save money on credit card transaction fees.
That would definitely sound like harassment to me, and I agree 100% with the AC you're responding to.
I suspect the AC would agree too. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion because you and I both know that as men we're not living on the defense all of the time. Most of the time we act as if there are no serious threats of bodily harm or worse - which doesn't mean there aren't any, just that they're rare enough they don't affect our livestyles. There's a reason why women usually don't walk alone at night, for example.
I'm not sure any of that follows. In a year when the same people post that they liked Captain Marvel but really hate the way Batgirl or Black Widow or whatever the superheroine tent pole movie is that season is, has been marketed, are you going to take them at face value too? Remember that Captain Marvel, like Black Panther and Wonder Woman, is immensely popular.
Now that the movie has been out for a couple of days and there are legit and non-legit reviews coming in, while there's no certain way to determine good faith and bad faith comments, there are at least some themes that make it obvious what the writer's motivation is without going through their comment history.
I'd argue the two that stand out are:
1. Comparing it unfavorably to Alita, claiming the writer liked the latter (sometimes among other similar movies) and this shows they're non-sexist. It's a reasonable barometer for two reasons: Alita isn't about a woman, it's about a robot that kinda looks like an anime girl, so it doesn't actually make the point the writer thinks, and because the Internet Misogynists actually ran a whisper campaign shortly before Captain Marvel was released where Alita was supposed to be pitched as the better alternative. Why? I don't know. It seemed absurd to me, but there you have it.
2. Comments claiming Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue. Captain Marvel is a superhero. She cannot, by definition, be a Mary Sue. The term is ludicrous in that context. It's so ludicrous it has to be in bad faith. I haven't even heard the term used against non-meta superheroes like Iron Man, despite the fact that Tony Stark can put together a battle robot suit in the middle of the Afghan desert from some junk that's just lying around, but Captain Marvel, who's been imbued with superpowers by aliens, deserves the label? Bullshit.
At this point, at the risk of missing some legitimate reviews, I'm ignoring any reviews that do either of the two above.
Most of the people claiming they liked Wonder Woman do not post evidence that they did at the time (which is fine, but I'm just pointing out that you can't really take it at face value that they didn't piss and moan at the time), and usually fall into one of the above traps. Sure, there's probably one or two people out there who haven't grasped the superhero concept, and who liked Wonder Woman, and who liked Alita and are mentioning it in some context other than trying to prove their feminist bona fides, but the number is likely to be a tiny proportion of those who promote the above tropes, wouldn't you agree?
Marvel seems to have chosen this approach intentionally. The certainly didn't take this approach with Black Panther. Nor did DC take this approach with Wonder Woman.
Marvel took what approach? Because all I see are:
1. A trailer being released six months ago.
2. The usual Internet Misogynists responding in the usual stupid way (mostly about Brie Larson not smiling enough.)
3. Most of the comics community laughing at the misogynists.
4. The misogynists deciding that the movie must, thus, be an "SJW" film because they got laughed at for being shitheads.
5. Six months of re-interpretation of everything Brie Larson says to imply she hates white men. There's even an AC in this thread arguing she hates men because... she once mentioned, critically, the fact she was sexually harassed by a TSA officer. Two years before the film was released.
There's been nothing divisive about how the film was marketed, and contrary to the gaslighting I'm seeing by you and others, WW was attacked by the usual IMs at the time too. Alita? No, but what does Alita have to do with literally anything at all, given it's about a robot who happens to appear like, eyes excepting, a girl? It says everything that the average IM thinks they can pretend liking a film about a robot somehow means they're not motivated by misogyny when they attack Captain Marvel.
The entire controversy was whipped up by IMs. Marvel's done damage control, but they've not said a single thing that can be construed as anti-anyone other than anti-misogynists-who-hate-this-movie-before-theyve-even-seen-it. And if it's "divisive" to say "People whose hatred of women means they're running bizarre campaigns to reduce the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes of a movie they've never watched", then... I guess it fits that definition, but that's not the definition most people use.
Not seen the film. Not particularly bothered by it generally but nonetheless feeling like I can't trust a single review at the moment thanks to the IMs poisoning the well again. This is a repeat of the same shit we saw with Ghostbusters (which turned out to be awful), Wonder Woman (which turned out to be good, great if you exclude the last 20 minutes), and Black Panther (which turned out to be great, period.)
Stop blaming Marvel for what an anti-women campaign that had nothing to do with them. And stop interpreting the lifting up of minority voices as being an attack on white men, it's ridiculous.
Why would the very people that love comic books, rate Wonder Woman highly and recently flocked to see Alita: Battle Angel want to see this movie fail
Literally nobody has argued that the people who love comic books, rate WW highly, and flocked to see Alita, want to see Captain Marvel fail.
The OP's comment was about incels, which, while inaccurate, is used as a kinda catch-all term for Internet misogynists largely because Incels are a rather prominent subgroup of said misogynists. Many are claiming they enjoyed WW and Alita, but there's little evidence for that - in fact, I seem to recall they hated WW at the time too.
Your confusion may possibly be because a sizable number of the IMs decided to promote a bizarre Alita vs CA fight just before Captain America was released, but that hardly means they ever liked Alita (and frankly, Alita is about a female looking killer robot, so I'm confused as to why liking Alita means jack shit about your feminist bona fides anyway.)
The UK will still end up under the same defacto regulations, it'll just not have any say in them any more. That goes for pretty much everything else too. Plus, if the combined might of all of Europe's business interests in one industry decides to go to war against a UK business, British people working in that industry might as well start posting their CVs.
The ridiculous utopia advocated by Brexiters would only have happened if the original referendum had been EU wide, and had been about dissolving the EU. It'd still have been dumb, as that'd have left the USA to step into the economic control vacuum. But instead the worst possible way of ending the EU was proposed - leaving it intact, but ensuring the UK didn't benefit from it nor have a say in how it runs. What a fucking joke.
EXTERNAL STORAGE in this context is the area where all the files you create yourself (such as your photos) gets loaded. It has that name because in early Android phones, the SD card was the only place to do it. Users don't have access to what would be termed "internal" storage in Android, you certainly can't copy arbitrary files to it.
If READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE is required to simply read a few files from a private configuration directory, the Android security model sucks beyond all possible comprehension.
Correct, it's pretty awful, it's better than iOS or Windows or Ubuntu, but that's not exactly difficult. The "SD card" or "External storage" is used as a generic file dumping ground, in much the same way your home directory is on every desktop operating system.
As to why it hasn't been fixed: as usual, the problem is legacy bullshit. Originally Android expected applications to store information that didn't come with the app itself on an external SD card. The external SD card in turn was formatted as FAT. In functionality terms, everything you'd expect to go in your home directory in a desktop OS is stored on the real, or virtual, "external" storage, and so it became the defacto home directory.
Google slowly integrated the external SD card into the system and changed the file system to something with permissions, but for some reason (presumably because so many existing apps relied upon having carte-blanche access to the SD card) the operating system's permission framework never reflected this. So, just as even the latest version of Windows allows applications to look at every file in your home directory, and the latest version of Ubuntu allows applications to look at every file in your home directory, and macOS lets you... etc... the current Android security model allows applications to have complete access to the "SD card" if you let them. Which is slightly better than those desktop operating systems (at least you can disable access), but not much.
I'm struggling to think of an OS that does this right at the moment. I don't think there's a single one. Which is depressing because the whole "Every app has access to $HOME" has been a problem long before mobile operating systems were a thing, people used to claim how much better NT was than 95 because "a trojan can't overwrite the OS". Well, sure, no, but the OS isn't what I'm worried about, that part of the system is pretty easy to restore. My home directory? Not so much.
Got to say, if MacBooks are so fragile that people are actually bothered about the manufacturer "approving" USB dongles, the situation is even worse than just a matter of plug compatibility.
Is it really that bad in the Apple eco-system now?
Compelling a witness to testify if they themselves are not the subject of the investigation (where the fifth amendment might apply) is a long established right the courts have had for centuries, it's not unusual and yes, you're normally compelled to do so on pain of being found in contempt of court.
Courts have this right because the interests of justice - that is, ensuring people are and aren't punished in accordance to the nation's laws - are not served if people withhold information about crimes. It's not an unfettered right, and there is due process even here, but once you get to the point that it's established that a crime has likely be committed, and a third party is more likely than not to have relevant information, then, well, the courts have the right to compel testimony. You'll note that the 5th Amendment specifically only excludes people testifying against themselves, not against others. That's not an oversight, that's a deliberate decision by the authors of the Bill of Rights.
Of course, when the nation's laws aren't just, or are being used to perpetuate an injustice - at least from the perspective of the witness - then that puts subpoenaed witnesses in a terrible position, which is what's going on here.
This case is a little awkward. Manning's involvement in Wikileaks dates back to when many people thought Wikileaks was trying to do the right thing. With hindsight, it's not clear to me Assange was, even then, but with the Bush regime being almost cartoonishly evil at the time, that was hard to see. I think Manning was used, I'm surprised Manning is still trying to protect them, but I respect her for doing that.
So break them up into four companies, and then each of those into four, so now you have SIXTEEN companies with all of your data, ready to share it with the world.
This is kinda sounding like you're misunderstanding the whole Hydra legend, stop doing that!
The online retailer is the only part that anyone ever complains about in monopoly terms. Breaking it up the way you describe would do absolutely nothing for anyone. Spinning off AWS isn't going to increase competition nor do anything for the supposed rival online retailer who just can't compete right now because they're not as trusted as Amazon is.
You're right, it is sick to make people do that journey. Which is why we should probably stop fucking up countries and turning them into war zones run by tin pot warlords, so they don't have to leave.
But as long as we do fuck up their countries, and as a result they have to flee terror and violence, and as such they do make that journey, we should let them in, because it's the only humane thing to do. Not separate the adults from their kids and torturing the latter, while throwing out the former, but, you know, give them asylum, and bring them to the many parts of our nation where they can contribute and make a difference.
But I suppose you'd join Trump in preferring our country decay into a white supremacist dystopia.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, we all have brain farts sometimes, don't worry about it!
Alan Turing is busy programming a Colossus 1000, finishes, waits the the lightbulbs to flicker, and runs out excitedly straight into the Guiness Book of Records offices.
"I've done it! I've used a computer to calculate Pi! It's.... about 3. It's just one digit so far, but with a more powerful computer, we could get this down to two, or even three, decimal places!"
And that's how the world record was initially set.
Probably not, 1 in any base is 1. A number in its own base is 10. (Hence ten, in decimal, is written 10, and two, in binary, is written 10.)
* in the UK.
Sorry, I had that part written in my head but somehow it never hit the keyboard.
As an aside: Slashdot really needs a clarification mode to give people the chance to correct their own comments. The "You're banned from writing anything in response to your own comment because you posted it less than a minute ago" thing is fucking stupid.
While this is technically true, the GP was talking about incarcerating more rich people. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that the rich are being imprisoned either as much, or for as long, as poor people. You could triple the number of rich people imprisoned without it making a blip on the US incarceration rate.
Fines? Here's the thing. Let's suppose we make it proportional to income, and we make the fine for doing X 90% of one year of income. Do you think the single mother on $25,000 a year will be impacted by this less or equally compared to Warren Buffet? (Not implying the latter has done anything deserving of being fined, just adding him as generic rich person that doesn't seem to be overly controversial right now)
The latter will go "Ouch, now I only have $X million to live on this year, I may even have to borrow some money", the former will go bankrupt, probably go to prison, and have her kids taken away.
We could probably do with an alternative to both prison and fines, but merely making fines proportional to wealth isn't going to fix anything. Indeed, it might even make things worse - like subpar healthcare reform, for example, it may merely delay real reform, and in the mean time the rich will find ways to wiggle out of it, like the Daily Mail managed to single handedly destroy a similar attempt at reform in the 1990s by encouraging poor and middle income people to hide their incomes, publicizing the absurdly high default fines they got as a result.
Yeah, I was going to say "Researchers from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology teamed up with colleagues from the U.S. and Switzerland and returned the state of a quantum computer a fraction of a second into the past" sounds like they've done an experiment that'll leave them very impressed when they find what an Action Replay expansion could do with a Sinclair Spectrum back in the 1980s.
Tell me about it. The other day I tried to use a synonym for chortle and it got stuck in the lameness filter. It took me a second to register why (the lameness filter doesn't, alas, tell you why your comment is lame, and I initially was looking all over for too much punctuation before it dawned on me...)
This is all true, but actually what most of us want is something simple, not the all singing all dancing "Show me some pictures of ShanghaiBill in the nude" thing that Hey Google can do.
Specifically 90% of us would prefer it if CALL <contact-name> AT <location-type-eg-cell-or-home-or-work> was one of a small number of commands pressing the button on your bluetooth actually recognized.
Unfortunately, Google's insistence on making it more complex than that means the ability to voice dial has been completely fucked up. Bugs in it, such as it redirecting to the wrong audio device for the call itself, have never been fixed, presumably because the resources are elsewhere. Every few months the entire thing stops working because you're supposed to accept some new terms and conditions that it won't speak to you. At one point it would try to match your contact name with any vaguely related contact name and then give you options: "Call bill" would result in "Do you mean? Call Bill at home, Call William Defoe at home. Call William Defoe at work. Call William Tell at work. Call Will Smith on mobile. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!" (Session ends, no way to actually select one of these options, and it was fucking obvious which option was the right one in the first place.)
And of course, it stops working altogether when you have no data connection available, or if the data available is congested or just unreliable.
No-one, other than the marketing team at Google, has ever asked for an AI to handle basic voice commands on phones. Google tries to do too much, which makes their service objectively less useful than the voice dialing feature on flip phones around 2004.
I'm guessing it has nothing to do with that and was a very reluctant decision, mostly based around Microsoft wanting developers to adopt DirectX12 and finding that impossible as long as it wasn't supported on Windows 7. I don't think it has anything to do with them believing Windows 7 will be around for one month or one century.
They'd have ported it to XP if it was easy, but in practice porting to 7 was probably trivial, as Windows 10 and Windows 7 aren't that different underneath (at least, for this kind of thing, whereas anything pre-Vista has to deal with significantly different under-the-hood APIs.)
To be fair, the article doesn't say they're getting rid of it, just that they want an understanding of how it's used. It could be they're experimenting with a more efficient alternative - which wouldn't be a bad thing. Well, it's Microsoft so it probably would be a bad thing, but that's because they're probably not experimenting with a more efficient alternative, but a less efficient alternative. Like the entire Desktop is now going to have The Ribbon or something.
About 50% of gas stations on this side of the pond charge 10-20c less per gallon for cash payments. That said, I suspect the reasoning is as much about getting customers to walk into the store, where they might be tempted to buy something (which is where the real money is made) as it is to save money on credit card transaction fees.
That would definitely sound like harassment to me, and I agree 100% with the AC you're responding to.
I suspect the AC would agree too. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion because you and I both know that as men we're not living on the defense all of the time. Most of the time we act as if there are no serious threats of bodily harm or worse - which doesn't mean there aren't any, just that they're rare enough they don't affect our livestyles. There's a reason why women usually don't walk alone at night, for example.
By someone with the power to make your life a living hell if you refuse?
Yes. Yes it is.
Is it the worst form of sexual harassment? No, but it is sexual harassment.
I'm not sure any of that follows. In a year when the same people post that they liked Captain Marvel but really hate the way Batgirl or Black Widow or whatever the superheroine tent pole movie is that season is, has been marketed, are you going to take them at face value too? Remember that Captain Marvel, like Black Panther and Wonder Woman, is immensely popular.
Now that the movie has been out for a couple of days and there are legit and non-legit reviews coming in, while there's no certain way to determine good faith and bad faith comments, there are at least some themes that make it obvious what the writer's motivation is without going through their comment history.
I'd argue the two that stand out are:
1. Comparing it unfavorably to Alita, claiming the writer liked the latter (sometimes among other similar movies) and this shows they're non-sexist. It's a reasonable barometer for two reasons: Alita isn't about a woman, it's about a robot that kinda looks like an anime girl, so it doesn't actually make the point the writer thinks, and because the Internet Misogynists actually ran a whisper campaign shortly before Captain Marvel was released where Alita was supposed to be pitched as the better alternative. Why? I don't know. It seemed absurd to me, but there you have it.
2. Comments claiming Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue. Captain Marvel is a superhero. She cannot, by definition, be a Mary Sue. The term is ludicrous in that context. It's so ludicrous it has to be in bad faith. I haven't even heard the term used against non-meta superheroes like Iron Man, despite the fact that Tony Stark can put together a battle robot suit in the middle of the Afghan desert from some junk that's just lying around, but Captain Marvel, who's been imbued with superpowers by aliens, deserves the label? Bullshit.
At this point, at the risk of missing some legitimate reviews, I'm ignoring any reviews that do either of the two above.
Most of the people claiming they liked Wonder Woman do not post evidence that they did at the time (which is fine, but I'm just pointing out that you can't really take it at face value that they didn't piss and moan at the time), and usually fall into one of the above traps. Sure, there's probably one or two people out there who haven't grasped the superhero concept, and who liked Wonder Woman, and who liked Alita and are mentioning it in some context other than trying to prove their feminist bona fides, but the number is likely to be a tiny proportion of those who promote the above tropes, wouldn't you agree?
IRONY!
Marvel took what approach? Because all I see are:
1. A trailer being released six months ago.
2. The usual Internet Misogynists responding in the usual stupid way (mostly about Brie Larson not smiling enough.)
3. Most of the comics community laughing at the misogynists.
4. The misogynists deciding that the movie must, thus, be an "SJW" film because they got laughed at for being shitheads.
5. Six months of re-interpretation of everything Brie Larson says to imply she hates white men. There's even an AC in this thread arguing she hates men because... she once mentioned, critically, the fact she was sexually harassed by a TSA officer. Two years before the film was released.
There's been nothing divisive about how the film was marketed, and contrary to the gaslighting I'm seeing by you and others, WW was attacked by the usual IMs at the time too. Alita? No, but what does Alita have to do with literally anything at all, given it's about a robot who happens to appear like, eyes excepting, a girl? It says everything that the average IM thinks they can pretend liking a film about a robot somehow means they're not motivated by misogyny when they attack Captain Marvel.
The entire controversy was whipped up by IMs. Marvel's done damage control, but they've not said a single thing that can be construed as anti-anyone other than anti-misogynists-who-hate-this-movie-before-theyve-even-seen-it. And if it's "divisive" to say "People whose hatred of women means they're running bizarre campaigns to reduce the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes of a movie they've never watched", then... I guess it fits that definition, but that's not the definition most people use.
Not seen the film. Not particularly bothered by it generally but nonetheless feeling like I can't trust a single review at the moment thanks to the IMs poisoning the well again. This is a repeat of the same shit we saw with Ghostbusters (which turned out to be awful), Wonder Woman (which turned out to be good, great if you exclude the last 20 minutes), and Black Panther (which turned out to be great, period.)
Stop blaming Marvel for what an anti-women campaign that had nothing to do with them. And stop interpreting the lifting up of minority voices as being an attack on white men, it's ridiculous.
Literally nobody has argued that the people who love comic books, rate WW highly, and flocked to see Alita, want to see Captain Marvel fail.
The OP's comment was about incels, which, while inaccurate, is used as a kinda catch-all term for Internet misogynists largely because Incels are a rather prominent subgroup of said misogynists. Many are claiming they enjoyed WW and Alita, but there's little evidence for that - in fact, I seem to recall they hated WW at the time too.
Your confusion may possibly be because a sizable number of the IMs decided to promote a bizarre Alita vs CA fight just before Captain America was released, but that hardly means they ever liked Alita (and frankly, Alita is about a female looking killer robot, so I'm confused as to why liking Alita means jack shit about your feminist bona fides anyway.)
The UK will still end up under the same defacto regulations, it'll just not have any say in them any more. That goes for pretty much everything else too. Plus, if the combined might of all of Europe's business interests in one industry decides to go to war against a UK business, British people working in that industry might as well start posting their CVs.
The ridiculous utopia advocated by Brexiters would only have happened if the original referendum had been EU wide, and had been about dissolving the EU. It'd still have been dumb, as that'd have left the USA to step into the economic control vacuum. But instead the worst possible way of ending the EU was proposed - leaving it intact, but ensuring the UK didn't benefit from it nor have a say in how it runs. What a fucking joke.
EXTERNAL STORAGE in this context is the area where all the files you create yourself (such as your photos) gets loaded. It has that name because in early Android phones, the SD card was the only place to do it. Users don't have access to what would be termed "internal" storage in Android, you certainly can't copy arbitrary files to it.
Correct, it's pretty awful, it's better than iOS or Windows or Ubuntu, but that's not exactly difficult. The "SD card" or "External storage" is used as a generic file dumping ground, in much the same way your home directory is on every desktop operating system.
As to why it hasn't been fixed: as usual, the problem is legacy bullshit. Originally Android expected applications to store information that didn't come with the app itself on an external SD card. The external SD card in turn was formatted as FAT. In functionality terms, everything you'd expect to go in your home directory in a desktop OS is stored on the real, or virtual, "external" storage, and so it became the defacto home directory.
Google slowly integrated the external SD card into the system and changed the file system to something with permissions, but for some reason (presumably because so many existing apps relied upon having carte-blanche access to the SD card) the operating system's permission framework never reflected this. So, just as even the latest version of Windows allows applications to look at every file in your home directory, and the latest version of Ubuntu allows applications to look at every file in your home directory, and macOS lets you... etc... the current Android security model allows applications to have complete access to the "SD card" if you let them. Which is slightly better than those desktop operating systems (at least you can disable access), but not much.
I'm struggling to think of an OS that does this right at the moment. I don't think there's a single one. Which is depressing because the whole "Every app has access to $HOME" has been a problem long before mobile operating systems were a thing, people used to claim how much better NT was than 95 because "a trojan can't overwrite the OS". Well, sure, no, but the OS isn't what I'm worried about, that part of the system is pretty easy to restore. My home directory? Not so much.
Got to say, if MacBooks are so fragile that people are actually bothered about the manufacturer "approving" USB dongles, the situation is even worse than just a matter of plug compatibility.
Is it really that bad in the Apple eco-system now?
Compelling a witness to testify if they themselves are not the subject of the investigation (where the fifth amendment might apply) is a long established right the courts have had for centuries, it's not unusual and yes, you're normally compelled to do so on pain of being found in contempt of court.
Courts have this right because the interests of justice - that is, ensuring people are and aren't punished in accordance to the nation's laws - are not served if people withhold information about crimes. It's not an unfettered right, and there is due process even here, but once you get to the point that it's established that a crime has likely be committed, and a third party is more likely than not to have relevant information, then, well, the courts have the right to compel testimony. You'll note that the 5th Amendment specifically only excludes people testifying against themselves, not against others. That's not an oversight, that's a deliberate decision by the authors of the Bill of Rights.
Of course, when the nation's laws aren't just, or are being used to perpetuate an injustice - at least from the perspective of the witness - then that puts subpoenaed witnesses in a terrible position, which is what's going on here.
This case is a little awkward. Manning's involvement in Wikileaks dates back to when many people thought Wikileaks was trying to do the right thing. With hindsight, it's not clear to me Assange was, even then, but with the Bush regime being almost cartoonishly evil at the time, that was hard to see. I think Manning was used, I'm surprised Manning is still trying to protect them, but I respect her for doing that.
So break them up into four companies, and then each of those into four, so now you have SIXTEEN companies with all of your data, ready to share it with the world.
This is kinda sounding like you're misunderstanding the whole Hydra legend, stop doing that!
The online retailer is the only part that anyone ever complains about in monopoly terms. Breaking it up the way you describe would do absolutely nothing for anyone. Spinning off AWS isn't going to increase competition nor do anything for the supposed rival online retailer who just can't compete right now because they're not as trusted as Amazon is.
You're right, it is sick to make people do that journey. Which is why we should probably stop fucking up countries and turning them into war zones run by tin pot warlords, so they don't have to leave.
But as long as we do fuck up their countries, and as a result they have to flee terror and violence, and as such they do make that journey, we should let them in, because it's the only humane thing to do. Not separate the adults from their kids and torturing the latter, while throwing out the former, but, you know, give them asylum, and bring them to the many parts of our nation where they can contribute and make a difference.
But I suppose you'd join Trump in preferring our country decay into a white supremacist dystopia.