Pollution being a major contributory factor seems rather questionable to me, given that there's a fairly obvious source of supporting evidence that should exist but isn't being cited. Widespread colonization of the Eastern seaboard of the Americas by Europeans, complete with written records, was well underway before the "pollution boom" that occurred during the industrial revolution, so those early settlers would have had much cleaner air than we do now. They might not have had the same accuracy of instrumentation, but they would certainly have been capable of documenting the extent of the storm surges that would have resulted from the massive hurricanes that presumably plagued their more-or-less pollution free atmosphere. So, does that evidence (even if it is somewhat circumstantial) exist or not?
That's not so say that pollution doesn't play a part at all - climate is perhaps the most complex system on the planet after all - only that it's perhaps not as significant as some are making out.
I think that rather depends on whether or not the consumers looking for a loan or other credit related service start looking into who their prospective sources of finance are using for doing background checks. If enough potential creditors start factoring that information into their decision making process - quite possible given the amount of media attention this is getting - then I suspect the lenders are going to start caring a little more than they might do at present. Not that it's going to make much difference; the system is clearly horribly broken and it's probably just a matter of time before Experian and TransUnion get compromised as well.
Pretty much. The only saving grace for Equifax on that front since they apparently have data on EU citizens involved in the breach is that they managed to get taken to the cleaners before the GDPR comes into force next May. If they'd somehow been able to keep the ship afloat that long, then they'd also be on the hook to the EU for 4% of their global annual *turnover* for the last fiscal year, which is probably enough to wipe them out all on its own. I doubt very much the company is going to survive this, even if the government steps in and bails them out - any trust their customers might have had should be long gone by this point.
Of course, that means that all your ID eggs are now going to be in two baskets rather than three, and there's absolutely zero evidence that either of the other two major players are any better at this than Equifax as far as I can see. Good luck with that.
You could use it to deliver a message to Microsoft about how you feel about their treatment of the platform. Of course, you'd probably need to write the message on a piece of paper, attach the piece of paper to the phone, and then throw the resulting assembly though the window of one of their stores, but that would also help to emphasise how you feel about it, so that's OK, right?
More seriously, just use it as a slightly more capable dumb phone when you're doing something where you're doing some activity that might risk damage your regular phone, when travelling to avoid the of TSA taking a peek into your private life, or just load it up with games (while you still can) and media and use it as a kind of Gameboy/MP3 player.
Some of us, including many in the tech media, definitely realise it and are taking the necessary steps but collectively you're right, of course. The comparative few that only store copies of their data in the cloud, or don't use it at all, in order to prevent data loss, refuse to use subscription software like Adobe's Creative Cloud, avoid hardware vendors like DJI that require Internet access to work, still buy physical media so they can rip their own DRM free copies, and so on are so few in number that it's not going to make much difference. The majority of the general public are almost certainly going to get burnt sooner or later when one of the Whatever-as-a-Service cloud providers they use has a serious data loss incident, goes bust, or whatever, and this is despite the warning signs of several smaller incidents already. It's not the the cloud is inherently bad - it's incredibly useful - but like any tool, you need to use it responsibly, and that's the concept that people are failing to understand at present.
Perhaps it would be for the best if a fairly popular service - like SoundCloud for instance, since they're already on the ropes - went under and got some mainstream coverage before the main bubble bursts. If that wakes up a few more people to the potential risks they are taking with their data and services and gets them to start spreading the word amongst others it might not turn out to be as major a disaster as it's got the potential to be. Then again, perhaps not. I'm pretty sure we all know someone who's response to losing some data when some random cloud service pulled the plug was to simply start over with another random cloud service, but there's just no helping some people - you've just got to do the best you can and, ultimately, make sure you and yours are covered.
I think the key difference is where the restrictions are being applied, and the fundamental differences between public and private spaces as venues for exercising the right to free speech. Within the confines of your own private property or services that you provide should absolutely be entirely up to you, it's when you try and apply that policy beyond those confines that you cross the line into censorship. There's a big difference between defending someone's right to say what they want, even though you might personally disagree with the content, and essentially being required to provide them with a soapbox and megaphone because of that right.
It's pretty easy to find people who claim that they will defend the rights of others they disagree with to say whatever they want - there are going to be dozens right here in this thread - but good luck finding many who will be happy for them to do so from their front yards, or provide them with the tools to do so. Having to look around in order to find a suitable public venue or amienable private one to get a message out isn't censorship; it's a measure of how acceptable that message is to the general public which is valuable in itself - once you've adjusted for such things as left wing dominance of the media, of course.
Pretty sure that there are going to be a lot of people thinking that they might be able to use terms of service to try and suppress sites with dissenting opinions to their own right now, from right across the political spectrum. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, and the rest are about to find out it's a very steep and slippery one as well. First they came for the Alt-Right...
On the otherhand, GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, et al are private companies and as such are free to set their own ground rules in the same way that malls, sports stadiums, and other private venues can - within reason - set their own specific rules while on their private property. A right to freedom of speech means that people have a right to say what they want, but is most certainly does not obligate others to provide them with a soap box to stand-on or force them to listen to what they want to say. As long as they are prepared to live *and* die by that sword, then that's entirely up to them - there are always going to be plenty of alternative vendors that are not quite so choosy.
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." — Richard Stallman (original author of the GPL). You seriously ought to go and read up on that, because you are badly misinformed about what the GPL actually aims to do and lets you do with code licensed under it. GNU.org has a whole bunch of pages on it, including an explicit statement that you can indeed sell code licensed under the GPL, so you could start there.
Those proportions seem sane enough, at least from looking at the contents of packages on Android, but unless iOS does things very differently I doubt that the frameworks are going to be entirely code either. The next step would be work out how much that 247MB is actual code, how much is images or other media resources, localizations, and even other frameworks (which may contain their own non-code resources and other frameworks...)?
More importantly, and I suspect the main reason for the bloat, even when you get down to the actual code how much of the code provided by the frameworks is actually used by the app? The answer is probably not a great deal, and if you're linking in several humongous frameworks just for a handful of the routines they provide then unless your optimization and linking can strip that redundant code out then you're going to end up with exactly the kind of bloat described.
Actually, it's a personal and artistic choice - both of the photographer and the viewer - as to which approach they might prefer in a given situation and what "message" the image is seen to convey. Most (by far, judging by my image sales figures) tend to pick and mix on an image-by-image basis, others see it as a more binary decision - I know another photographer who hates the long exposure effect applied to moving water, which used correctly can convey a sense of motion and/or create a more dreamy effect, who will always, without fail, use a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any motion in the water. That often results in some quite interesting takes on things, especially in low light where she is forced to use a wide aperture resulting in shallow DoF, but any water in her images is always frozen in time and seldom seems to have any sense of motion at all.
For some images you absolutely want 100% sharpness from front to back (e.g. most landscape photographs), for others you might find you prefer to use a shallow depth of field, either because it emphasises a given subject (e.g. to primarily show an animal but still depict its environment) or because it reduces background clutter (e.g. to pick out an athlete in front of advertising hoardings and spectators). Also, despite what many hipsters seem to think (which may be colouring Sciengin's view), DoF is not an all-or-nothing choice - you don't need to choose between everything in focus or the minimum possible razor blade thin zone of sharpness with maximum bokeh. In fact, the real skill with selective DoF (because it's often bloody hard to get just right) is selecting the precise aperture you need to achieve the required amount selective focus in order to have the entirety primary subject sharp and soften the rest.
Not to mention the effect that appropriate use of DoF can have to enhance an image; sometimes you really need to soften out a harsh background to avoid distracting from the primary subject, or (even more challenging) balance the exposure so that you can put all the attention on the subject by having it as the only thing in an image that is perfectly sharp. The real skill in photography comes from knowing what to leave *out* of an image, not how much you can cram in.
It actually depends on the type of digital camera, but most digital SLRs and MF backs absolutely have traditional mechanical shutters. Here's a YouTube clip of one taken out a Nikon D500 showing how they work, and another of a Canon 7D doing an exposure taken at 10,000fps that shows how the mirror assembly and shutter work.
Actually, I think that all parties realise that this particular border will probably need some special arrangements if the rest of the EU/UK ends up going with a hard border, even though logistically a hard border would be the simplest approach (unless your farm or daily commute straddles the border, of course). Apart from a few remaining extremists, no one wants to risk a return to conflict - even McGuinness and Paisley realised that wasn't the way and found some common ground in the end. It is, however, the early days of an on-going negotiation, and even if you are quite prepared to settle on some middle ground it's generally not a good idea to start with that as your opening gambit. It also depends on how hard the EU wants to negotiate and how comfortable the Irish are with being used as a negotiating chip, despite presumably knowing what the limits of compromise will be and having been able to set some "red lines" on the subject. Strategically, the EU's best tactic is to keep the UK on the back foot, and driving a wedge between the Conservatives and DUP is an ideal way to do that. If the DUP walks, which they probably will do if the border discussions start and the EU team starts pushing their buttons, then so does the Conservative ability to pass legislation in the Commons, and that means giving concessions to Labour and the SNP that will likely play right into the EU's hands.
Given how the Conservative party seems to be on the verge of having their internal struggles over the EU escalating to the next level as MPs and other staff try to position themselves to avoid any of the inevitable fallout when it turns out we actually can't have our cake and eat it, probably not. Actually, at this point, I wouldn't even put any money on them still being in government come 2019, let alone led by Theresa May. The EU has the UK by the balls over the Eire-Northern Ireland border issue, and everyone with a clue knows it; were they to force a choice between free movement or a hard border both the DUP and the Conservatives will tear themselves apart.
At present, it's totally unknown what the post-exit setup will be. British citizens can currently travel without a visa to many countries (more than almost any other, IIRC), but whether that's because the UK is part of the EU or not varies from country to country. Generally speaking, if a country specifically states that *UK* citizens don't need a visa (like the US does) because of arrangements that predate any made by the EU, then that arrangement should continue regardless of whatever terms are agreed between the UK and the EU.
Post Brexit, it's entirely possible that the EU could require that British citizens acquire a visa for visits to the EU (and presumably visa versa since it's almost certainly going to be a quid pro quo arrangement, whichever way it goes), which would probably negate any arrangements that allow them to travel as citizens of the EU as well. That's likely to be deeply unpopular on both sides however; far too many people are used to making impromptu trips between the UK and mainland Europe via Eurostar or to take advantage of special offers by budget airlines, all of which might be too much trouble if a visa is required. Not that being merely deeply unpopular seems to be a major impediment to how things turn out any more, of course.
If you're waiting for a perfect analogy, you're going to have a long wait - your original question was specifically about the passport/travel issue, so that's what people sought to address. Other than the language issue (and with some US accents even that is questionable), it's close enough to think of the EU as equivalent to the US in terms of the general geopolitical setup, particularly within the Schengen area. Within Schengen the borders are just lines on a map, and in some cases you only know you've crossed one because you notice that the road signs suddenly look slightly different.
Outside of Schengen, like in the UK, it's generally "papers please" on entry no matter where you are from, with few exceptions. One such exception is the UK's only land border with the EU; the one between Eire and Northern Ireland, which is an arrangement totally independant of Schengen and considered by many to be a critical component of the Peace Process. That's why that particular border is proving so contentious in the negotiations; if the EU insists on a hard border (which would be quite reasonable, if the UK wants to curtail free movement), then the situation could get messy even before you consider that Northern Ireland was fairly strongly pro-Remain.
Having gone through the presentation I linked above, it seems to be anything that might send back the complete URLs that you visit to a central server for any reason. Web of Trust is the only extension they mention specifically, but anything that purports to vet URLs/domains "for your safety" - like many antivirus addons - would seem to be the ones that put you at the greatest risk of this. Basically, they're looking at matching data in URLs visited with things like YouTube playlists, social media posts, and so on, then looking to see which is the only "anonymous" user that matches the most entries on a given playlist.
The presentation is available (as a 6.2MB PDF) from the Def Con Media server, along with all the other presentations, but it doesn't provide a list either. It does provide some useful insights into how they do it though, which should enable the more clueful to run their own tests. The only plug in I could see that was mentioned was Web of Trust, but without the context of the talk it might only appear to be getting singled out for special attention. Generally speaking though it appears that any extension that is validating URLs against a central source for whatever reason - just as WoT does - is a great source of data that can then be readily mined to provide a unique identity.
In traditional development, sure. In crowdfunding, which this was, the process is generally *meant* to work like this:
1. Idea for product.
2. Basic design and proof of concept for product.
3. Sell idea of product to raise funds for the next three steps.
4. Develop and build product.
5. Test product.
6. Ship product to backers.
7. Sell product to non-backers.
8. Profit.
Repeat steps 4, 5 and occassionally (or not so occassionally *cough* Star Citizen *cough*) step 3 as required.
Unfortunately there are two common and related failings in this approach. Developers often skimp on stage 2 and just produce the equivalent of a glossy brochure and vague promises, which is what happened with the Lily Drone, while potential backers often fail at their due diligence (AKA they have defective bullshit detectors) at step 3 and/or commit more funds than they really should - often excessively so. That latter part is the real failing; without funds, there are no stages 4-8 and no one needs to lose any money with many crowdfunding systems. There's nothing wrong with throwing a few bucks at a long-shot project like Lily, but you need to be aware of the chances of sucess and treat it like the gamble that it is and accept that you're quite probably going to lose your money. If you're throwing a few hundred bucks at something, without any proof that the project founders can actually deliver, and especially if you can't really afford to just lose the money, then you probably need the lesson you're going to get.
Depending on the routing you may not have to go through security screening again - the assumption being that your originating country has taken care of it to suitable standards. Since the ban was selective, a terrorist could therefore have still brought a laptop bomb airside in one of the banned airports, flown to an intermediate airport that was not impacted by the carry ban and does not require further screening, then boarded an onward flight to the US. With a few exceptions re-screening carry-on baggage for onward connections is still quite rare in Europe, especially in countries that are not significantly high on the terrorist's hit lists, so with the right combination of airports the ban was pretty much useless.
Symantec also own Blue Coat, a security appliance/software vendor with a fairly well regarded product that sometimes gets "misused" in order to facilitate censorship in authoritarian regimes, and the MessageLabs email SaaS platform. I wouldn't expect a Yahoo! style fire sale just yet, especially given that the market for Blue Coat's products (which are definitely not cheap) just seems to keep growing and growing.
If you are protesting the FCC Network Neutrality rules you are supporting AT&T. It's that simple.
Actually, it's definitely not that simple. Even if you discount the possibility that this is nothing more than a cynical PR stunt by a net neutrality hating AT&T all it implies is that AT&T prefers to the status quo to what they are anticipating from Trump and Pai's alternative. That does not necessarily preclude them from hating the current regulations as well, just that they might be picking what they see as the lesser of two evils. The real issue here, at least for AT&T et al, isn't really net neutrality, it's whether they get regulated by the mostly toothless FCC, as is currently (and somewhat questionably) the case, or the FTC as Trump and Pai want. Whether they win that battle or not, you can pretty much guarantee they are going to get right back onto trying to scupper net neutrality (which TFS even states they are still opposed to) again.
Actually, it sounds more like they need to figure out how to bill their customers for the *on-going rental* of their non-returned umbrellas. At 50 jiao (5 yuan) per half hour, they're going to be making a pretty good RoI given each umbrella only costs around 60 yuan - including the 19 yuan deposit you're in the black after about 8 hours of rental. They've got an app that makes the initial payment, so surely that includes such on-going billing, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Pollution being a major contributory factor seems rather questionable to me, given that there's a fairly obvious source of supporting evidence that should exist but isn't being cited. Widespread colonization of the Eastern seaboard of the Americas by Europeans, complete with written records, was well underway before the "pollution boom" that occurred during the industrial revolution, so those early settlers would have had much cleaner air than we do now. They might not have had the same accuracy of instrumentation, but they would certainly have been capable of documenting the extent of the storm surges that would have resulted from the massive hurricanes that presumably plagued their more-or-less pollution free atmosphere. So, does that evidence (even if it is somewhat circumstantial) exist or not?
That's not so say that pollution doesn't play a part at all - climate is perhaps the most complex system on the planet after all - only that it's perhaps not as significant as some are making out.
I think that rather depends on whether or not the consumers looking for a loan or other credit related service start looking into who their prospective sources of finance are using for doing background checks. If enough potential creditors start factoring that information into their decision making process - quite possible given the amount of media attention this is getting - then I suspect the lenders are going to start caring a little more than they might do at present. Not that it's going to make much difference; the system is clearly horribly broken and it's probably just a matter of time before Experian and TransUnion get compromised as well.
Pretty much. The only saving grace for Equifax on that front since they apparently have data on EU citizens involved in the breach is that they managed to get taken to the cleaners before the GDPR comes into force next May. If they'd somehow been able to keep the ship afloat that long, then they'd also be on the hook to the EU for 4% of their global annual *turnover* for the last fiscal year, which is probably enough to wipe them out all on its own. I doubt very much the company is going to survive this, even if the government steps in and bails them out - any trust their customers might have had should be long gone by this point.
Of course, that means that all your ID eggs are now going to be in two baskets rather than three, and there's absolutely zero evidence that either of the other two major players are any better at this than Equifax as far as I can see. Good luck with that.
You could use it to deliver a message to Microsoft about how you feel about their treatment of the platform. Of course, you'd probably need to write the message on a piece of paper, attach the piece of paper to the phone, and then throw the resulting assembly though the window of one of their stores, but that would also help to emphasise how you feel about it, so that's OK, right?
More seriously, just use it as a slightly more capable dumb phone when you're doing something where you're doing some activity that might risk damage your regular phone, when travelling to avoid the of TSA taking a peek into your private life, or just load it up with games (while you still can) and media and use it as a kind of Gameboy/MP3 player.
Some of us, including many in the tech media, definitely realise it and are taking the necessary steps but collectively you're right, of course. The comparative few that only store copies of their data in the cloud, or don't use it at all, in order to prevent data loss, refuse to use subscription software like Adobe's Creative Cloud, avoid hardware vendors like DJI that require Internet access to work, still buy physical media so they can rip their own DRM free copies, and so on are so few in number that it's not going to make much difference. The majority of the general public are almost certainly going to get burnt sooner or later when one of the Whatever-as-a-Service cloud providers they use has a serious data loss incident, goes bust, or whatever, and this is despite the warning signs of several smaller incidents already. It's not the the cloud is inherently bad - it's incredibly useful - but like any tool, you need to use it responsibly, and that's the concept that people are failing to understand at present.
Perhaps it would be for the best if a fairly popular service - like SoundCloud for instance, since they're already on the ropes - went under and got some mainstream coverage before the main bubble bursts. If that wakes up a few more people to the potential risks they are taking with their data and services and gets them to start spreading the word amongst others it might not turn out to be as major a disaster as it's got the potential to be. Then again, perhaps not. I'm pretty sure we all know someone who's response to losing some data when some random cloud service pulled the plug was to simply start over with another random cloud service, but there's just no helping some people - you've just got to do the best you can and, ultimately, make sure you and yours are covered.
I think the key difference is where the restrictions are being applied, and the fundamental differences between public and private spaces as venues for exercising the right to free speech. Within the confines of your own private property or services that you provide should absolutely be entirely up to you, it's when you try and apply that policy beyond those confines that you cross the line into censorship. There's a big difference between defending someone's right to say what they want, even though you might personally disagree with the content, and essentially being required to provide them with a soapbox and megaphone because of that right.
It's pretty easy to find people who claim that they will defend the rights of others they disagree with to say whatever they want - there are going to be dozens right here in this thread - but good luck finding many who will be happy for them to do so from their front yards, or provide them with the tools to do so. Having to look around in order to find a suitable public venue or amienable private one to get a message out isn't censorship; it's a measure of how acceptable that message is to the general public which is valuable in itself - once you've adjusted for such things as left wing dominance of the media, of course.
Pretty sure that there are going to be a lot of people thinking that they might be able to use terms of service to try and suppress sites with dissenting opinions to their own right now, from right across the political spectrum. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, and the rest are about to find out it's a very steep and slippery one as well. First they came for the Alt-Right...
On the otherhand, GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, et al are private companies and as such are free to set their own ground rules in the same way that malls, sports stadiums, and other private venues can - within reason - set their own specific rules while on their private property. A right to freedom of speech means that people have a right to say what they want, but is most certainly does not obligate others to provide them with a soap box to stand-on or force them to listen to what they want to say. As long as they are prepared to live *and* die by that sword, then that's entirely up to them - there are always going to be plenty of alternative vendors that are not quite so choosy.
Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." — Richard Stallman (original author of the GPL). You seriously ought to go and read up on that, because you are badly misinformed about what the GPL actually aims to do and lets you do with code licensed under it. GNU.org has a whole bunch of pages on it, including an explicit statement that you can indeed sell code licensed under the GPL, so you could start there.
Sadly not, but what about the dresscode policy on capes?
Those proportions seem sane enough, at least from looking at the contents of packages on Android, but unless iOS does things very differently I doubt that the frameworks are going to be entirely code either. The next step would be work out how much that 247MB is actual code, how much is images or other media resources, localizations, and even other frameworks (which may contain their own non-code resources and other frameworks...)?
More importantly, and I suspect the main reason for the bloat, even when you get down to the actual code how much of the code provided by the frameworks is actually used by the app? The answer is probably not a great deal, and if you're linking in several humongous frameworks just for a handful of the routines they provide then unless your optimization and linking can strip that redundant code out then you're going to end up with exactly the kind of bloat described.
Actually, it's a personal and artistic choice - both of the photographer and the viewer - as to which approach they might prefer in a given situation and what "message" the image is seen to convey. Most (by far, judging by my image sales figures) tend to pick and mix on an image-by-image basis, others see it as a more binary decision - I know another photographer who hates the long exposure effect applied to moving water, which used correctly can convey a sense of motion and/or create a more dreamy effect, who will always, without fail, use a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any motion in the water. That often results in some quite interesting takes on things, especially in low light where she is forced to use a wide aperture resulting in shallow DoF, but any water in her images is always frozen in time and seldom seems to have any sense of motion at all.
For some images you absolutely want 100% sharpness from front to back (e.g. most landscape photographs), for others you might find you prefer to use a shallow depth of field, either because it emphasises a given subject (e.g. to primarily show an animal but still depict its environment) or because it reduces background clutter (e.g. to pick out an athlete in front of advertising hoardings and spectators). Also, despite what many hipsters seem to think (which may be colouring Sciengin's view), DoF is not an all-or-nothing choice - you don't need to choose between everything in focus or the minimum possible razor blade thin zone of sharpness with maximum bokeh. In fact, the real skill with selective DoF (because it's often bloody hard to get just right) is selecting the precise aperture you need to achieve the required amount selective focus in order to have the entirety primary subject sharp and soften the rest.
Not to mention the effect that appropriate use of DoF can have to enhance an image; sometimes you really need to soften out a harsh background to avoid distracting from the primary subject, or (even more challenging) balance the exposure so that you can put all the attention on the subject by having it as the only thing in an image that is perfectly sharp. The real skill in photography comes from knowing what to leave *out* of an image, not how much you can cram in.
It actually depends on the type of digital camera, but most digital SLRs and MF backs absolutely have traditional mechanical shutters. Here's a YouTube clip of one taken out a Nikon D500 showing how they work, and another of a Canon 7D doing an exposure taken at 10,000fps that shows how the mirror assembly and shutter work.
Actually, I think that all parties realise that this particular border will probably need some special arrangements if the rest of the EU/UK ends up going with a hard border, even though logistically a hard border would be the simplest approach (unless your farm or daily commute straddles the border, of course). Apart from a few remaining extremists, no one wants to risk a return to conflict - even McGuinness and Paisley realised that wasn't the way and found some common ground in the end. It is, however, the early days of an on-going negotiation, and even if you are quite prepared to settle on some middle ground it's generally not a good idea to start with that as your opening gambit. It also depends on how hard the EU wants to negotiate and how comfortable the Irish are with being used as a negotiating chip, despite presumably knowing what the limits of compromise will be and having been able to set some "red lines" on the subject. Strategically, the EU's best tactic is to keep the UK on the back foot, and driving a wedge between the Conservatives and DUP is an ideal way to do that. If the DUP walks, which they probably will do if the border discussions start and the EU team starts pushing their buttons, then so does the Conservative ability to pass legislation in the Commons, and that means giving concessions to Labour and the SNP that will likely play right into the EU's hands.
Given how the Conservative party seems to be on the verge of having their internal struggles over the EU escalating to the next level as MPs and other staff try to position themselves to avoid any of the inevitable fallout when it turns out we actually can't have our cake and eat it, probably not. Actually, at this point, I wouldn't even put any money on them still being in government come 2019, let alone led by Theresa May. The EU has the UK by the balls over the Eire-Northern Ireland border issue, and everyone with a clue knows it; were they to force a choice between free movement or a hard border both the DUP and the Conservatives will tear themselves apart.
At present, it's totally unknown what the post-exit setup will be. British citizens can currently travel without a visa to many countries (more than almost any other, IIRC), but whether that's because the UK is part of the EU or not varies from country to country. Generally speaking, if a country specifically states that *UK* citizens don't need a visa (like the US does) because of arrangements that predate any made by the EU, then that arrangement should continue regardless of whatever terms are agreed between the UK and the EU.
Post Brexit, it's entirely possible that the EU could require that British citizens acquire a visa for visits to the EU (and presumably visa versa since it's almost certainly going to be a quid pro quo arrangement, whichever way it goes), which would probably negate any arrangements that allow them to travel as citizens of the EU as well. That's likely to be deeply unpopular on both sides however; far too many people are used to making impromptu trips between the UK and mainland Europe via Eurostar or to take advantage of special offers by budget airlines, all of which might be too much trouble if a visa is required. Not that being merely deeply unpopular seems to be a major impediment to how things turn out any more, of course.
If you're waiting for a perfect analogy, you're going to have a long wait - your original question was specifically about the passport/travel issue, so that's what people sought to address. Other than the language issue (and with some US accents even that is questionable), it's close enough to think of the EU as equivalent to the US in terms of the general geopolitical setup, particularly within the Schengen area. Within Schengen the borders are just lines on a map, and in some cases you only know you've crossed one because you notice that the road signs suddenly look slightly different.
Outside of Schengen, like in the UK, it's generally "papers please" on entry no matter where you are from, with few exceptions. One such exception is the UK's only land border with the EU; the one between Eire and Northern Ireland, which is an arrangement totally independant of Schengen and considered by many to be a critical component of the Peace Process. That's why that particular border is proving so contentious in the negotiations; if the EU insists on a hard border (which would be quite reasonable, if the UK wants to curtail free movement), then the situation could get messy even before you consider that Northern Ireland was fairly strongly pro-Remain.
Having gone through the presentation I linked above, it seems to be anything that might send back the complete URLs that you visit to a central server for any reason. Web of Trust is the only extension they mention specifically, but anything that purports to vet URLs/domains "for your safety" - like many antivirus addons - would seem to be the ones that put you at the greatest risk of this. Basically, they're looking at matching data in URLs visited with things like YouTube playlists, social media posts, and so on, then looking to see which is the only "anonymous" user that matches the most entries on a given playlist.
The presentation is available (as a 6.2MB PDF) from the Def Con Media server, along with all the other presentations, but it doesn't provide a list either. It does provide some useful insights into how they do it though, which should enable the more clueful to run their own tests. The only plug in I could see that was mentioned was Web of Trust, but without the context of the talk it might only appear to be getting singled out for special attention. Generally speaking though it appears that any extension that is validating URLs against a central source for whatever reason - just as WoT does - is a great source of data that can then be readily mined to provide a unique identity.
In traditional development, sure. In crowdfunding, which this was, the process is generally *meant* to work like this:
1. Idea for product.
2. Basic design and proof of concept for product.
3. Sell idea of product to raise funds for the next three steps.
4. Develop and build product.
5. Test product.
6. Ship product to backers.
7. Sell product to non-backers.
8. Profit.
Repeat steps 4, 5 and occassionally (or not so occassionally *cough* Star Citizen *cough*) step 3 as required.
Unfortunately there are two common and related failings in this approach. Developers often skimp on stage 2 and just produce the equivalent of a glossy brochure and vague promises, which is what happened with the Lily Drone, while potential backers often fail at their due diligence (AKA they have defective bullshit detectors) at step 3 and/or commit more funds than they really should - often excessively so. That latter part is the real failing; without funds, there are no stages 4-8 and no one needs to lose any money with many crowdfunding systems. There's nothing wrong with throwing a few bucks at a long-shot project like Lily, but you need to be aware of the chances of sucess and treat it like the gamble that it is and accept that you're quite probably going to lose your money. If you're throwing a few hundred bucks at something, without any proof that the project founders can actually deliver, and especially if you can't really afford to just lose the money, then you probably need the lesson you're going to get.
Depending on the routing you may not have to go through security screening again - the assumption being that your originating country has taken care of it to suitable standards. Since the ban was selective, a terrorist could therefore have still brought a laptop bomb airside in one of the banned airports, flown to an intermediate airport that was not impacted by the carry ban and does not require further screening, then boarded an onward flight to the US. With a few exceptions re-screening carry-on baggage for onward connections is still quite rare in Europe, especially in countries that are not significantly high on the terrorist's hit lists, so with the right combination of airports the ban was pretty much useless.
Symantec also own Blue Coat, a security appliance/software vendor with a fairly well regarded product that sometimes gets "misused" in order to facilitate censorship in authoritarian regimes, and the MessageLabs email SaaS platform. I wouldn't expect a Yahoo! style fire sale just yet, especially given that the market for Blue Coat's products (which are definitely not cheap) just seems to keep growing and growing.
Actually, it's definitely not that simple. Even if you discount the possibility that this is nothing more than a cynical PR stunt by a net neutrality hating AT&T all it implies is that AT&T prefers to the status quo to what they are anticipating from Trump and Pai's alternative. That does not necessarily preclude them from hating the current regulations as well, just that they might be picking what they see as the lesser of two evils. The real issue here, at least for AT&T et al, isn't really net neutrality, it's whether they get regulated by the mostly toothless FCC, as is currently (and somewhat questionably) the case, or the FTC as Trump and Pai want. Whether they win that battle or not, you can pretty much guarantee they are going to get right back onto trying to scupper net neutrality (which TFS even states they are still opposed to) again.
Actually, it sounds more like they need to figure out how to bill their customers for the *on-going rental* of their non-returned umbrellas. At 50 jiao (5 yuan) per half hour, they're going to be making a pretty good RoI given each umbrella only costs around 60 yuan - including the 19 yuan deposit you're in the black after about 8 hours of rental. They've got an app that makes the initial payment, so surely that includes such on-going billing, right?
Oh, wait, "startup". Maybe not...