The problem with government garneted student loans for just about any degree (Basket weaving, Women's Studies etc) is clear. However, I don't see where Wal-Mart is going to contribute to the high cost of education with this program. Why?
First, this isn't a loan guarantee, it's tuition assistance.
Second, it's only for areas of study that Wal-Mart finds valuable and one would assume other companies would as well.
Finally, only about a million employees of Wal-Mart are eligible and only a fraction of those will take advantage. If 5% take Wal-Mart up on this offer, it's only going to be 50K students, and I doubt they'd see that many. Hardly enough to drive the market of 20.4 Million students.
Ya those degrees are worthless outside of Walmart. Who wants anyone with supply chain management?
Not true. Many retailers need supply chain management and MBA's to run things. Walmart is not the only game player in the market, though they may be the only game in town in some places.
In PNG the government makes many pronouncements and laws which they have no means or interest to enforce. All flash in the pan, no actual go or even a pan to flash in. Law enforcement in PNG is generally non-existent for most of the country, inconsistent where it does exist and usually "paid for" with bribes. The whole government structure is corrupted.
All the PNG government can really do is limit FB from it's networks, which is only a fraction of the total in country. What's more, the number of people actually on line in PNG is vanishingly few, limited mostly to non-nationals involved in missionary work, energy production, logging and mining. Your average PNG citizen has no access to technology of any kind, even in the few cities where poverty reigns.
You have to return a verifiable 51% of each bill and they will replace it. However, you have to be able to prove that the remains being provided are from a single bill. They are not going to take your word for it that the pile of ashes in your hands used to be 30 x $100 bills without some kind of proof that you didn't just burn a stack of $1's and are claiming they are $100's.
As I read the fine article, they only lost money because they lost access to their wallet and cannot convert them back to money. The coins still belong to them, and will, forever.
The only time Unions cannot strike is when they serve government and then only in specific cases. Granted, a lot of Union shops these days are public employee unions, but only in the case of public safety does the law say they cannot strike. So your air traffic controllers may not strike, nor may your firemen and possibly police, but others may, like school teachers or bus drivers.
In general, a Union working for a private or public company are legally able to strike any time they so choose.
LOL.. I know the press wants to make a big deal out of that stuff, but Kim's options are clear. Give up your WMD's or live with the sanctions.
Libya and Syria where civil wars run amok where the dictator got over thrown. Where the USA was involved in supporting one side over the other, we didn't actively seek to kill those leaders. What's more, I'm not shedding tears over their demise, nor would I for Kim's. Dictators are a pretty bad lot in general and the Kims have been among the worst of our age. His options may be limited and his time in power short, but I'm not going to be crying in my cheerios because he faces some tough choices and risks being deposed or killed by his people.
So, for the time being, Trump is playing his cards well, not letting North Korea out flank him and get the sanctions lifted before giving up their nuclear weapons. North Korea is playing with their usual playbook, by playing nice, looking cooperative and friendly, but really ceding nothing of value. Thus the release of the hostages and the dismantling of a useless nuclear test site with the press present. (Don't be fooled by the Nuclear test site thing, they ruined it with their last test anyway and need to build another site anyway.) The angry rhetoric is normal from North Korea, they are trying to argue from a position of strength, but the truth is, they are in serious trouble and apart from the holding of Seoul hostage, they got nothing.
Dude, you are going to get yourself killed if you don't calm down..
Interacting with the cops isn't all that dangerous if you remember a couple of things:
First, they are not generally out trying to trump up a way to shoot folks and get away with it. The paperwork alone is deterrent enough for most people. The second to last thing a cop wants to do is draw their firearm (only dying on duty rates lower).
Second, all you need to do is COMPLY with any directions they are giving. IF you are obeying them, they are NOT going to shoot you in almost all conceivable situations. Don't be a threat, make it a point to NOT be a threat. Even if they are mistreating you, COMPLY and live to file an ethics complaint later. They usually just want to live and let live and on the rare occasions when an officer goes off the rails a bit, you will only help yourself by being compliant and respectful...
Now I'm a middle aged white guy but I'm over 6'6" so I'm kind of threatening. I've been pulled over at night and I have gone out of my way to not be a threat. One time I had a long jacket on that went to my knees and when I was asked for my drivers license, I had to step out of the car to get it. I asked for permission to get out. Turned around to face away from the officer, took out my wallet, showed him my hands and turned back around to hand him my license. When I turned around, the officer had his hand on his weapon and I don't blame him. Look at this from his point of view... Here's this guy, reaching behind his back and I cannot see what he's actually grabbing. Is he a crazy who's going to shoot me just because or some guy I just pulled over who just wants to go home too? Don't act like the crazy guy, don't do anything that might get you mistaken as a crazy cop killer, be respectful and compliant and you won't have any issues with being shot...
"Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one"
Did they get neighbours/witnesses to corroborate any one of these claims before shooting an unarmed man who was naturally confused by the sudden arrival of an army?
They thought they had one ON THE PHONE.
Turns out the guy who dialed 911 and was on the phone during the whole thing was making it all up, but we only know that in hindsight.
You act as if they went in and just started shooting before anything happened. This is NOT true.
The unfortunate facts are clear and the killed man's movements are the final step in a long series of events that got him shot. Yes, he was innocent and didn't fully understand what the issue was, but step though the whole series of events, looking closely at what the police on the scene where being told and what they had good reason to believe they where facing. This whole series of events where rapid paced.
Now, had the 911 call not happened and the encounter took place, nobody get's shot. Hat this man not stepped out on his porch so soon after the police arrived, disrupting the surveillance the police where doing to ascertain exactly what was going on, he would be alive today. Any number of things could have stopped this... But the police acted reasonably, given the events, the time line, what they where being told and what they knew.
No reason? Have you thought about the contents of the 911 call?
Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one and threatened to shoot other hostages while setting up to set a fire to kill even more folks actually been true, nobody would have questioned what they did but you'd likely be miffed that they waited too long. They cannot win with you people.
If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.
Calling 911 and lying is illegal. So we charge them with manslaughter.
Also, Think about what you are saying. You want the police to not believe you when you call 911? Say some guy has broken into your house and is attacking your family, you call 911 and they don't take you seriously... You'd be yelling bloody murder that they where not aggressive and fast enough.
The outcome in this case was regrettable and if it's possible we need to think about what we can do to avoid such unfortunate consequences, but putting handcuffs on the police or making their job more dangerous is a non starter.
So.. What exactly are you saying? That the police shouldn't pay any attention to 911 calls? Of course not.
Had the 911 call been accurate and the police didn't pay attention to it, or didn't go into the situation with the necessary caution and the house exploded killing multiple people, I'm guessing YOU would be the first to hold the police responsible.
Look, this is an imperfect world and there are times when you just don't have all the information you need but you have to make a decision NOW because people are going to get hurt or die. Police make such choices every day, life and death choices for both them and the people around them, good or bad. They do amazingly well, considering the complexity and dangers of what they do. Unfortunately, in this case, things didn't work out very well, but I don't blame the police for this, but the lying 911 caller.
If you think that your rules of engagement won't kill cops... You are wrong too.
So the question is, which set of rules cost the least number of lives... My argument is that yours will, both in the ranks of police AND in the civilian population at large because the criminals (the real ones) will get a whole lot more time to ply their trade while the officers are waiting to confirm the things you think they need to confirm.
You do need to discuss this with a couple of police officers who are facing this kind of thing every day. I suggest you listen to what they will tell you about your proposed rules.
For the love of Pete.. THINK about what you are saying.
You are almost literally putting handcuffs on police with your rules of engagement. You are actually giving them LESS rights than your average person to defend themselves? Seriously?
I don't think you have any clue about the danger of what you are suggesting and you might want to find a friend who's a cop and talk to them about this. I've actually had discussions with multiple officers about this kind of thing and I can assure you your ideas are crazy.
The lives of our police are already in grave danger, your ideas only increases this danger by basically making it necessary for a confirmation of the intent of the suspect to use deadly force before they can defend themselves using deadly force. Your average person only needs the reasonable suspicion of danger to defend themselves. So you put cops at a big disadvantage with your idea, and many (not just cops) will die because of this.
Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly. Why don't we just take their guns away?
Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force. The reality of policing is that it's a split second decision between going home and being buried. In dangerous situations the police are empowered to use deadly force to defend themselves, other officers and the general public and generally they save many from harm by using force. The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.
The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public. In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed because you tied the police down to some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement that make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous.
All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and let South Korea do the heavy lifting... But noooooo....
South Korea doing the heavy lifting? Please...
The guy in charge down south is so bent on peace at any price that he's almost just giving Kim everything, including control of South Korea. The leader of South Korea just ran a campaign on this issue and has HUGE political pressure to show results, any kind of results. They are in no mood to lift anything, heavy or not over there.
Kim is really the one who's responsible for this. Kim has been ratcheting up the rhetoric. He's been saying stupid stuff about Trump, Pompano and Pence even. I personally think that Kim is afraid of a revolt if he is out of the country for too long with any advance warning. I also think he's convinced that he can negotiate his way into keeping his nuclear weapons, which he sees as his lifeline.
Given that the denuclearization of both Korea's is Trump's stated goal, I'm guessing that we are at an impasse and Trump is making his demand clear, no keeping your WMD's, no negotiation on that point so the sanctions stay in place. Kim is powerless to force anything, so his only gambit is to pull out. Trump is letting him decide, saying "OK, This issue is non-negotiable for me, so if you want to meet, that's the deal. Call me if you change your mind."
Because the use of force was justified in the situation presented to the cop at the time... Even though in hindsight we know the guy that got shot wasn't armed and hadn't intended to threaten anyone, at the time, given the information the cop had, shooting him was a reasonable action.
Because... The Cop, acting on his training and the information at hand, had every legal right to shoot what he reasonably perceived as a deadly threat to himself and others.
Don't let hindsight cloud your judgment. You must put yourself in the situation and understand the information the cops had. If you consider the 911 call credible and some guy pops out of the house and his hand moves to his waistband, what are you going to do? Do you stand there and get shot? Not even the police are required to do that.
Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.
It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.
Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.
But can you direct the Post Office to deliver them to an office down the street who's job is to simply drop them into the physical analog of/dev/null? Wouldn't that be just fine? The post office delivers them, the receiver just deletes them. Or in this case, it's UPS doing the delivery, so no postal regulations apply.
The issue is not what it seems and I'm not sure the judge was correct, but I've not yet tried reading his judgment to determine his thought process. It does seem though that if it takes 75 pages, your logic might be a bit convoluted.
Cannot be flashed with third party firmware. I use OpenWRT and DD-WRT and I *refuse* to buy any consumer router that doesn't have at least a porting effort to one of these third party firmware packages.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's one heck of a lot better than just trusting the manufacturer to do the right thing and fix their security issues in a timely manner.
Exactly what I was thinking... But do we KNOW that FB doesn't have parts of it's operation in Europe that they cannot just pull?
I suppose EU could move to block FB from doing business within their borders, but I'm not really clear on how they could accomplish that if FB wasn't willing to cooperate with their efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with government garneted student loans for just about any degree (Basket weaving, Women's Studies etc) is clear. However, I don't see where Wal-Mart is going to contribute to the high cost of education with this program. Why?
First, this isn't a loan guarantee, it's tuition assistance.
Second, it's only for areas of study that Wal-Mart finds valuable and one would assume other companies would as well.
Finally, only about a million employees of Wal-Mart are eligible and only a fraction of those will take advantage. If 5% take Wal-Mart up on this offer, it's only going to be 50K students, and I doubt they'd see that many. Hardly enough to drive the market of 20.4 Million students.
Ya those degrees are worthless outside of Walmart. Who wants anyone with supply chain management?
Not true. Many retailers need supply chain management and MBA's to run things. Walmart is not the only game player in the market, though they may be the only game in town in some places.
In PNG the government makes many pronouncements and laws which they have no means or interest to enforce. All flash in the pan, no actual go or even a pan to flash in. Law enforcement in PNG is generally non-existent for most of the country, inconsistent where it does exist and usually "paid for" with bribes. The whole government structure is corrupted.
All the PNG government can really do is limit FB from it's networks, which is only a fraction of the total in country. What's more, the number of people actually on line in PNG is vanishingly few, limited mostly to non-nationals involved in missionary work, energy production, logging and mining. Your average PNG citizen has no access to technology of any kind, even in the few cities where poverty reigns.
You have to return a verifiable 51% of each bill and they will replace it. However, you have to be able to prove that the remains being provided are from a single bill. They are not going to take your word for it that the pile of ashes in your hands used to be 30 x $100 bills without some kind of proof that you didn't just burn a stack of $1's and are claiming they are $100's.
As I read the fine article, they only lost money because they lost access to their wallet and cannot convert them back to money. The coins still belong to them, and will, forever.
Are you mad? One fire and it's all gone. Carve it into a stone tablet if its important.
Hard to do with actual currency. Those $100 bills don't take the heat either.
The only time Unions cannot strike is when they serve government and then only in specific cases. Granted, a lot of Union shops these days are public employee unions, but only in the case of public safety does the law say they cannot strike. So your air traffic controllers may not strike, nor may your firemen and possibly police, but others may, like school teachers or bus drivers.
In general, a Union working for a private or public company are legally able to strike any time they so choose.
LOL.. I know the press wants to make a big deal out of that stuff, but Kim's options are clear. Give up your WMD's or live with the sanctions.
Libya and Syria where civil wars run amok where the dictator got over thrown. Where the USA was involved in supporting one side over the other, we didn't actively seek to kill those leaders. What's more, I'm not shedding tears over their demise, nor would I for Kim's. Dictators are a pretty bad lot in general and the Kims have been among the worst of our age. His options may be limited and his time in power short, but I'm not going to be crying in my cheerios because he faces some tough choices and risks being deposed or killed by his people.
So, for the time being, Trump is playing his cards well, not letting North Korea out flank him and get the sanctions lifted before giving up their nuclear weapons. North Korea is playing with their usual playbook, by playing nice, looking cooperative and friendly, but really ceding nothing of value. Thus the release of the hostages and the dismantling of a useless nuclear test site with the press present. (Don't be fooled by the Nuclear test site thing, they ruined it with their last test anyway and need to build another site anyway.) The angry rhetoric is normal from North Korea, they are trying to argue from a position of strength, but the truth is, they are in serious trouble and apart from the holding of Seoul hostage, they got nothing.
Dude, you are going to get yourself killed if you don't calm down..
Interacting with the cops isn't all that dangerous if you remember a couple of things:
First, they are not generally out trying to trump up a way to shoot folks and get away with it. The paperwork alone is deterrent enough for most people. The second to last thing a cop wants to do is draw their firearm (only dying on duty rates lower).
Second, all you need to do is COMPLY with any directions they are giving. IF you are obeying them, they are NOT going to shoot you in almost all conceivable situations. Don't be a threat, make it a point to NOT be a threat. Even if they are mistreating you, COMPLY and live to file an ethics complaint later. They usually just want to live and let live and on the rare occasions when an officer goes off the rails a bit, you will only help yourself by being compliant and respectful...
Now I'm a middle aged white guy but I'm over 6'6" so I'm kind of threatening. I've been pulled over at night and I have gone out of my way to not be a threat. One time I had a long jacket on that went to my knees and when I was asked for my drivers license, I had to step out of the car to get it. I asked for permission to get out. Turned around to face away from the officer, took out my wallet, showed him my hands and turned back around to hand him my license. When I turned around, the officer had his hand on his weapon and I don't blame him. Look at this from his point of view... Here's this guy, reaching behind his back and I cannot see what he's actually grabbing. Is he a crazy who's going to shoot me just because or some guy I just pulled over who just wants to go home too? Don't act like the crazy guy, don't do anything that might get you mistaken as a crazy cop killer, be respectful and compliant and you won't have any issues with being shot...
"Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one"
Did they get neighbours/witnesses to corroborate any one of these claims before shooting an unarmed man who was naturally confused by the sudden arrival of an army?
They thought they had one ON THE PHONE.
Turns out the guy who dialed 911 and was on the phone during the whole thing was making it all up, but we only know that in hindsight.
You act as if they went in and just started shooting before anything happened. This is NOT true.
The unfortunate facts are clear and the killed man's movements are the final step in a long series of events that got him shot. Yes, he was innocent and didn't fully understand what the issue was, but step though the whole series of events, looking closely at what the police on the scene where being told and what they had good reason to believe they where facing. This whole series of events where rapid paced.
Now, had the 911 call not happened and the encounter took place, nobody get's shot. Hat this man not stepped out on his porch so soon after the police arrived, disrupting the surveillance the police where doing to ascertain exactly what was going on, he would be alive today. Any number of things could have stopped this... But the police acted reasonably, given the events, the time line, what they where being told and what they knew.
No reason? Have you thought about the contents of the 911 call?
Had an armed crazy man, who already had shot one and threatened to shoot other hostages while setting up to set a fire to kill even more folks actually been true, nobody would have questioned what they did but you'd likely be miffed that they waited too long. They cannot win with you people.
If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.
Calling 911 and lying is illegal. So we charge them with manslaughter.
Also, Think about what you are saying. You want the police to not believe you when you call 911? Say some guy has broken into your house and is attacking your family, you call 911 and they don't take you seriously... You'd be yelling bloody murder that they where not aggressive and fast enough.
The outcome in this case was regrettable and if it's possible we need to think about what we can do to avoid such unfortunate consequences, but putting handcuffs on the police or making their job more dangerous is a non starter.
So.. What exactly are you saying? That the police shouldn't pay any attention to 911 calls? Of course not.
Had the 911 call been accurate and the police didn't pay attention to it, or didn't go into the situation with the necessary caution and the house exploded killing multiple people, I'm guessing YOU would be the first to hold the police responsible.
Look, this is an imperfect world and there are times when you just don't have all the information you need but you have to make a decision NOW because people are going to get hurt or die. Police make such choices every day, life and death choices for both them and the people around them, good or bad. They do amazingly well, considering the complexity and dangers of what they do. Unfortunately, in this case, things didn't work out very well, but I don't blame the police for this, but the lying 911 caller.
If you think that your rules of engagement won't kill cops... You are wrong too.
So the question is, which set of rules cost the least number of lives... My argument is that yours will, both in the ranks of police AND in the civilian population at large because the criminals (the real ones) will get a whole lot more time to ply their trade while the officers are waiting to confirm the things you think they need to confirm.
You do need to discuss this with a couple of police officers who are facing this kind of thing every day. I suggest you listen to what they will tell you about your proposed rules.
For the love of Pete.. THINK about what you are saying.
You are almost literally putting handcuffs on police with your rules of engagement. You are actually giving them LESS rights than your average person to defend themselves? Seriously?
I don't think you have any clue about the danger of what you are suggesting and you might want to find a friend who's a cop and talk to them about this. I've actually had discussions with multiple officers about this kind of thing and I can assure you your ideas are crazy.
The lives of our police are already in grave danger, your ideas only increases this danger by basically making it necessary for a confirmation of the intent of the suspect to use deadly force before they can defend themselves using deadly force. Your average person only needs the reasonable suspicion of danger to defend themselves. So you put cops at a big disadvantage with your idea, and many (not just cops) will die because of this.
Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly. Why don't we just take their guns away?
Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force. The reality of policing is that it's a split second decision between going home and being buried. In dangerous situations the police are empowered to use deadly force to defend themselves, other officers and the general public and generally they save many from harm by using force. The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.
The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public. In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed because you tied the police down to some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement that make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous.
All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and let South Korea do the heavy lifting... But noooooo....
South Korea doing the heavy lifting? Please...
The guy in charge down south is so bent on peace at any price that he's almost just giving Kim everything, including control of South Korea. The leader of South Korea just ran a campaign on this issue and has HUGE political pressure to show results, any kind of results. They are in no mood to lift anything, heavy or not over there.
Kim is really the one who's responsible for this. Kim has been ratcheting up the rhetoric. He's been saying stupid stuff about Trump, Pompano and Pence even. I personally think that Kim is afraid of a revolt if he is out of the country for too long with any advance warning. I also think he's convinced that he can negotiate his way into keeping his nuclear weapons, which he sees as his lifeline.
Given that the denuclearization of both Korea's is Trump's stated goal, I'm guessing that we are at an impasse and Trump is making his demand clear, no keeping your WMD's, no negotiation on that point so the sanctions stay in place. Kim is powerless to force anything, so his only gambit is to pull out. Trump is letting him decide, saying "OK, This issue is non-negotiable for me, so if you want to meet, that's the deal. Call me if you change your mind."
Because the use of force was justified in the situation presented to the cop at the time... Even though in hindsight we know the guy that got shot wasn't armed and hadn't intended to threaten anyone, at the time, given the information the cop had, shooting him was a reasonable action.
Because... The Cop, acting on his training and the information at hand, had every legal right to shoot what he reasonably perceived as a deadly threat to himself and others.
Don't let hindsight cloud your judgment. You must put yourself in the situation and understand the information the cops had. If you consider the 911 call credible and some guy pops out of the house and his hand moves to his waistband, what are you going to do? Do you stand there and get shot? Not even the police are required to do that.
And the overreacting police, too.
Given the situation and looking at it from the perspective of Wichita's police, I don't think they acted inappropriately.
It is really easy to use hindsight to accuse the police of acting wrongly when the outcome is something nobody wants. If one considers the situation, what the police where being told and what they observed, what happened was justified, even if it was unfortunate. From the perspective of the police, with the information they were provided by dispatch, the guy who got shot was an active threat. Based on the 911 call and the unfortunate actions of the victim, there wasn't much else the Police could reasonably do.
Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.
But can you direct the Post Office to deliver them to an office down the street who's job is to simply drop them into the physical analog of /dev/null? Wouldn't that be just fine? The post office delivers them, the receiver just deletes them. Or in this case, it's UPS doing the delivery, so no postal regulations apply.
The issue is not what it seems and I'm not sure the judge was correct, but I've not yet tried reading his judgment to determine his thought process. It does seem though that if it takes 75 pages, your logic might be a bit convoluted.
That's cute that you believe flashing a firmware with something else is an absolute guarantee of security.
To quote my original post:
It's not a perfect solution, but it's one heck of a lot better than just trusting the manufacturer ...
Having issues with reading comprehension? I think so.
Cannot be flashed with third party firmware. I use OpenWRT and DD-WRT and I *refuse* to buy any consumer router that doesn't have at least a porting effort to one of these third party firmware packages.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's one heck of a lot better than just trusting the manufacturer to do the right thing and fix their security issues in a timely manner.
Exactly what I was thinking... But do we KNOW that FB doesn't have parts of it's operation in Europe that they cannot just pull?
I suppose EU could move to block FB from doing business within their borders, but I'm not really clear on how they could accomplish that if FB wasn't willing to cooperate with their efforts.