That's a lazy little "hit piece", but then the Daily Mail is always eager to stretch stories to create a "scandal" and sell more papers. The email exchange in question includes Clinton telling the aide to strip out the secure info to sanitize the document ("non paper"), after which it's approved to send through standard ("nonsecure") channels. Admittedly it's written in "insider" shorthand, but it's routine and legally just fine.
The fundamental issue is that more efficient distribution in a growing market benefits companies with strong brands and more resources, who can drive people to their products. I'd suggest that the App Store's handling infrastructure (sales, distribution, in-store marketing) makes it easier for indie companies to focus on writing apps, so they'd be worse off if they could only sell via their web sites.
The "missing functionality" in the App Store - upgrade pricing and free trials - can both be effectively achieved using other mechanisms. That is, companies can (and do) release new versions of their apps as separate apps when they think that the differences are significant enough that people will pay for the app upgrade. And companies often release "free" apps that have an in-app purchase for the "real" game, which gives you a free trial that you pay to continue to play. Of course, the "freemium" model is an extension of a free trial, breaking the purchase into ongoing small purchases.
Actually in Vermont Sanders was _great_ for business. It turns out that when you break down the anti-competitive barriers put in place by the biggest companies, all other businesses do better, and their innovation and competitiveness is GREAT for the economy.
According to people who work for Trump he's not particularly smart - mainly a raging egotist who's pretty good at structuring deals so as to stiff vendors and partners, so business people really don't like dealing with him. Perhaps as a result, or just due to bad judgement on his part, his business hasn't been terribly successful either - he started by his Dad giving him a ton of money, which in total he managed to grow at half the rate of the stock market, making him a dramatically below-average investment.
Things people care about, like infrastructure and education, get cut because "there's not enough money". If corporations paid historically normal tax rates, there would be "enough money", so that excuse would be gone.
Of course, there's always some excuse for wasting money on defense instead of on constructive things...
To be clear, government spending relative to GDP in the US isn't particularly high by historical standards. The reason that there are deficits is largely because corporations are actually paying far less in taxes than they did a few decades ago, and the US real-world corporate tax rates actually paid are lower than in most other countries.
The result is that infrastructure, education, etc., are all underfund. The government ran better in the 50s through the early 70s, when corporate taxes were balanced with individual taxes, and there was enough money to run the country well, build highways, etc. Now corporations have managed to manipulate the tax laws such that they pay very low taxes, so even with government spending down quite a bit, there are still deficits. If corporate tax breaks to profitable companies (e.g. to oil companies) were stopped (since they're completely unnecessary) the budget would be in great shape. Cut defense spending to just being high (e.g. after the Carter/Reagan buildup) and we'd have huge surpluses, and could achieve really great things. Remember when the US dared to be great instead of terrified?
Any any non-programmer can download and run secure communications software. All that outlawing secure online communications in the US would do is destroy a large chunk of the US technology industry, as everyone would shift to buying technology from more rational suppliers.
A big problem with "VPNs" is that there are a ton of incompatible, proprietary VPN tools out there, generally horrible and incompatible with each other, and/or expensive, so it's far from surprising that the security company doesn't want to deal with any of it.
If the goal of the OP is to make sure that nobody is watching his home's video other than the security company, I'd suggest using https streaming (which is what his system likely already does) with a certificate configured at the security company, verified by the sending side (in the house) so that can prove the stream is going to the security company. For extra credit, put a cert on the sending side, verified by the receiver.
Of course, you still have to trust the security company. But there's no way around that.
Terrorism isn't a military contest, it is a political contest, taken by people who are committed to a cause that is clearly losing (islamic fanatics, christian fanatics, white supremacists). If you kill terrorists, you kill many non-terrorists as well, and that just makes more people hate you, aiding their recruiting. Layer on top idiot politicians (Trump) that spew racist broadsides that promote terrorist recruiting even more, and the situation never gets better.
The way to defeat terrorists is to remove the desperation that makes people vulnerable to being recruited to do horrible things. If people have decent lives, jobs, schools, family ties, etc., they're not tempted to join crazy causes. That's why the millions of Moslems in Indonesia (for example) aren't terrorists.
Ads can afford a low 'hit' rate, because the cost of being wrong is very low. A good ad gets a 3% response rate, meaning 97% of the time it's a "false positive", but it's still profitable because ads are dirt cheap (0.5 cents would be high) so if you make a few dollars on the 'hits' you can easily cover the misses. In counter-terrorism, each false positive requires detectives to work the lead, making them extremely expensive to pursue. That's why every data mining approach to counter-terrorism has failed so far - the cost of pursuing the false positives gives data mining leads negative value, because they pull resources away from more productive approaches.
But the government's non-technical management loves the idea, and keeps allocating money to it, and unscrupulous researchers will keep taking the money.
Star Trek came up with a pretty good excuse for this - an ancient race seeded "humanoids" throughout the galaxy, so the "aliens" came from the same source, which is why we all have the same basic shape and structure, eat basically the same food, doctors can heal aliens, etc.
Of course, the real reason is that it's very hard to hire actual aliens to play parts on TV shows, or to put humans in sufficiently alien costumes. And even if you could, emotions (and production) would be a real challenge. There are a few cases where it worked (e.g. Devil in the Dark, the episode with the Horta) but that was a one-episode character which made it possible logistically. And they got an amazing athlete to play the part.
Pretty much the same reason that aliens all speak English (or are magically translated by a computer or microbes) because it'd be really annoying to have every visit to a new planet in a weekly SF show start with months or years of working out how to communicate.
Militarily ISIS is in terrible shape - shrinking area of control, no industrial base or educational system, and alienating nearly every government on the planet - the Arab governments, in particularly, are directly threatened by ISIS because ISIS wants to overthrow them and establish their own Theocracy.
But that's why they're turning to terrorism. The attacks in Paris and elsewhere are a sign that they're losing. Note that almost all of the attacks are against other Moslem countries, not Paris, the US, etc., which (IMO) is why the Islamic world is largely turned against ISIS.
True, so far he's revealed a wide range of illegal activities, breaking both US and international law, as well as extensive lying to the public (also arguably illegal) and to Congress (clearly illegal). Revealing illegal government activity is quite embarrassing to the US government, so of course they're trying to punish him. Of course, they might also want to think about stopping doing illegal things that are damaging to the country when they're revealed.
Exactly. Friends in the security business tell me that these data mining leads have large negative value, because they require human effort to follow up on, and so far have a 0% success rate, meaning the pull resources away from more productive leads. Unfortunately the non-technical leadership LOVES the idea of data mining magically finding the bad guys, and keep pushing the programs forward.
IMO, the value of teaching kids computer programming are many: 1) The learn to think logically. Theoretically this could be done in a logic class but there's a value in expressing the logical thinking in a context where it can be validated, which weeds out incorrect logic. 2) They learn that they can control computers, not just use them. Even if they're not going to write software professionally, knowing that you can control the computer gives you confidence in using it, and 3) Some will actually program the computers, whether it's using "power user" tools like scripting and spreadsheets. And sone kids who never would have taken an optional computer science course might turn out to be amazing engineers!
Of course, no matter how they're detonated they don't have blinking LEDs on a PCB on someone's chest. The whole point of a bomb vest is that it's NOT OBVIOUS, so the bomber can get into position without alerting security. So is someone wearing an obvious PCB with blinking lights, and no explosives, isn't a bomber.
"It wasn't a problem in Boston either, until they attached one to a freeway support. "
They stuck blinkies in all sorts of obscure, random places, including under an overpass. Same as in the other 11 cities. None of them contained explosives, or even 'fake' explosives. They had LEDs arranged like a cartoon character, and a small battery.
Note that bombs (1) contain explosives, and (2) don't advertise themselves with blinking LEDs.
In the guerrilla advertising campaign for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" there were blinkies spread around 12 cities, 11 of which managed to figure out that LEDs are not explosives. Only Boston cops freaked out, locking the city down (despite being told by MIT that there were no explosives) and wasting $millions. Of course Boston cops aren't big on apologizing after their screw-ups; they tend to double down despite reality. The silver lining is that 11 other cities' cops were rational and did the right thing, which is cause for some optimism.
"The problem is that nobody wants a more locked-down game console. What we want is a more open one. "
Perhaps you're not familiar with how Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft operate their console businesses, but their consoles are all much more locked down than Apple. They are much more restrictive of what they allow onto the platform, and they demand much more money from developers; Apple's review process is a piece of cake compared to getting anything through Nintendo!
Of course, all consoles are more locked down the desktops - Mac and Windows and Linux of course you can install whatever you like from wherever you like. But that's not how consoles work - they're all much more controlled/organized.:-)
Google Play, if it were on consoles, would be an example of being more open. But so far when it was tried (Ouya) the result wasn't good. Not sure that the open-ness was the cause - they also didn't make marketing muscle. But it does show that "open-ness" didn't get either developers or consumers to flock to the platform. And Google Play is tiny compared to Apple's App Store on tablets and phones. So while I like open-ness, it's hard to find proof that it wins over a well run, curated model.
You're missing Apple's strengths. They have many millions of very happy customers, and (by a wide margin) the largest and most vibrant eco-system of digital content delivery (iTunes, App Stores) with the largest collection of content (music, video, apps). And now, for $150, those millions of of people can expand their relationship with Apple, which is already their phones and tablets and computers, to their living room. You say that Apple doesn't have a franchise to roll out to serious gamers, and I say that "hardcore gamers" aren't Apple's target - Apple is much more interested in the larger market of everyone else, who want a cheap, fun device for their living room. My guess is that for $150 the Apple TV will outsell (unit sales) the $300 consoles by a wide margin.
In terms of device unit sales, you're right that Android sells more, because these days there are lots of cheap Android phones sold as "feature phones", meaning that they're used to make calls and perhaps take photo's, but not as "smart phones" - no web browsing or apps. So not relevant as a market for games.
In terms of app sales, iOS wins. The result is that app sales for iOS are much more than Android, and growing. http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/... .
So if you're picking a platform to sell games on, you're going to start with iOS, because that's where the sales are.
I know it's a popular idea that Apple's products are "too expensive" but the numbers are:
- AppleTV $149 - Xbox One $349 - PS4 $399 - WiiU $299
So the game console it much cheaper. The games will likely be cheaper, too, given Apple's pricing model (which is much more developer friendly than the disk-based consoles).
Correction "A new CDC poll shows that about half of Alabama's teens have had sex, *due to* the fact that abstinence-centric sexual education is the law in Alabama."
Numerous studies have shown that "abstinence-centric" sex ed course correlate strongly with increased teen pregnancy, sexual diseases and abortion.
Really? Powell also used private email when he was SoS, which he wiped. The only difference is that he didn't retain or turn over ANY emails. As far as I can tell, Clinton's mistake was in not straight-out wiping everything and ignoring the record retention laws, the way Powell, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc., did.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a lazy little "hit piece", but then the Daily Mail is always eager to stretch stories to create a "scandal" and sell more papers. The email exchange in question includes Clinton telling the aide to strip out the secure info to sanitize the document ("non paper"), after which it's approved to send through standard ("nonsecure") channels. Admittedly it's written in "insider" shorthand, but it's routine and legally just fine.
The fundamental issue is that more efficient distribution in a growing market benefits companies with strong brands and more resources, who can drive people to their products. I'd suggest that the App Store's handling infrastructure (sales, distribution, in-store marketing) makes it easier for indie companies to focus on writing apps, so they'd be worse off if they could only sell via their web sites.
The "missing functionality" in the App Store - upgrade pricing and free trials - can both be effectively achieved using other mechanisms. That is, companies can (and do) release new versions of their apps as separate apps when they think that the differences are significant enough that people will pay for the app upgrade. And companies often release "free" apps that have an in-app purchase for the "real" game, which gives you a free trial that you pay to continue to play. Of course, the "freemium" model is an extension of a free trial, breaking the purchase into ongoing small purchases.
Actually in Vermont Sanders was _great_ for business. It turns out that when you break down the anti-competitive barriers put in place by the biggest companies, all other businesses do better, and their innovation and competitiveness is GREAT for the economy.
Want to try again?
According to people who work for Trump he's not particularly smart - mainly a raging egotist who's pretty good at structuring deals so as to stiff vendors and partners, so business people really don't like dealing with him. Perhaps as a result, or just due to bad judgement on his part, his business hasn't been terribly successful either - he started by his Dad giving him a ton of money, which in total he managed to grow at half the rate of the stock market, making him a dramatically below-average investment.
Things people care about, like infrastructure and education, get cut because "there's not enough money". If corporations paid historically normal tax rates, there would be "enough money", so that excuse would be gone.
Of course, there's always some excuse for wasting money on defense instead of on constructive things...
To be clear, government spending relative to GDP in the US isn't particularly high by historical standards. The reason that there are deficits is largely because corporations are actually paying far less in taxes than they did a few decades ago, and the US real-world corporate tax rates actually paid are lower than in most other countries.
The result is that infrastructure, education, etc., are all underfund. The government ran better in the 50s through the early 70s, when corporate taxes were balanced with individual taxes, and there was enough money to run the country well, build highways, etc. Now corporations have managed to manipulate the tax laws such that they pay very low taxes, so even with government spending down quite a bit, there are still deficits. If corporate tax breaks to profitable companies (e.g. to oil companies) were stopped (since they're completely unnecessary) the budget would be in great shape. Cut defense spending to just being high (e.g. after the Carter/Reagan buildup) and we'd have huge surpluses, and could achieve really great things. Remember when the US dared to be great instead of terrified?
Any any non-programmer can download and run secure communications software. All that outlawing secure online communications in the US would do is destroy a large chunk of the US technology industry, as everyone would shift to buying technology from more rational suppliers.
A big problem with "VPNs" is that there are a ton of incompatible, proprietary VPN tools out there, generally horrible and incompatible with each other, and/or expensive, so it's far from surprising that the security company doesn't want to deal with any of it.
If the goal of the OP is to make sure that nobody is watching his home's video other than the security company, I'd suggest using https streaming (which is what his system likely already does) with a certificate configured at the security company, verified by the sending side (in the house) so that can prove the stream is going to the security company. For extra credit, put a cert on the sending side, verified by the receiver.
Of course, you still have to trust the security company. But there's no way around that.
Terrorism isn't a military contest, it is a political contest, taken by people who are committed to a cause that is clearly losing (islamic fanatics, christian fanatics, white supremacists). If you kill terrorists, you kill many non-terrorists as well, and that just makes more people hate you, aiding their recruiting. Layer on top idiot politicians (Trump) that spew racist broadsides that promote terrorist recruiting even more, and the situation never gets better.
The way to defeat terrorists is to remove the desperation that makes people vulnerable to being recruited to do horrible things. If people have decent lives, jobs, schools, family ties, etc., they're not tempted to join crazy causes. That's why the millions of Moslems in Indonesia (for example) aren't terrorists.
Ads can afford a low 'hit' rate, because the cost of being wrong is very low. A good ad gets a 3% response rate, meaning 97% of the time it's a "false positive", but it's still profitable because ads are dirt cheap (0.5 cents would be high) so if you make a few dollars on the 'hits' you can easily cover the misses. In counter-terrorism, each false positive requires detectives to work the lead, making them extremely expensive to pursue. That's why every data mining approach to counter-terrorism has failed so far - the cost of pursuing the false positives gives data mining leads negative value, because they pull resources away from more productive approaches.
But the government's non-technical management loves the idea, and keeps allocating money to it, and unscrupulous researchers will keep taking the money.
Star Trek came up with a pretty good excuse for this - an ancient race seeded "humanoids" throughout the galaxy, so the "aliens" came from the same source, which is why we all have the same basic shape and structure, eat basically the same food, doctors can heal aliens, etc.
Of course, the real reason is that it's very hard to hire actual aliens to play parts on TV shows, or to put humans in sufficiently alien costumes. And even if you could, emotions (and production) would be a real challenge. There are a few cases where it worked (e.g. Devil in the Dark, the episode with the Horta) but that was a one-episode character which made it possible logistically. And they got an amazing athlete to play the part.
Pretty much the same reason that aliens all speak English (or are magically translated by a computer or microbes) because it'd be really annoying to have every visit to a new planet in a weekly SF show start with months or years of working out how to communicate.
Militarily ISIS is in terrible shape - shrinking area of control, no industrial base or educational system, and alienating nearly every government on the planet - the Arab governments, in particularly, are directly threatened by ISIS because ISIS wants to overthrow them and establish their own Theocracy.
But that's why they're turning to terrorism. The attacks in Paris and elsewhere are a sign that they're losing. Note that almost all of the attacks are against other Moslem countries, not Paris, the US, etc., which (IMO) is why the Islamic world is largely turned against ISIS.
True, so far he's revealed a wide range of illegal activities, breaking both US and international law, as well as extensive lying to the public (also arguably illegal) and to Congress (clearly illegal). Revealing illegal government activity is quite embarrassing to the US government, so of course they're trying to punish him. Of course, they might also want to think about stopping doing illegal things that are damaging to the country when they're revealed.
Exactly. Friends in the security business tell me that these data mining leads have large negative value, because they require human effort to follow up on, and so far have a 0% success rate, meaning the pull resources away from more productive leads. Unfortunately the non-technical leadership LOVES the idea of data mining magically finding the bad guys, and keep pushing the programs forward.
IMO, the value of teaching kids computer programming are many:
1) The learn to think logically. Theoretically this could be done in a logic class but there's a value in expressing the logical thinking in a context where it can be validated, which weeds out incorrect logic.
2) They learn that they can control computers, not just use them. Even if they're not going to write software professionally, knowing that you can control the computer gives you confidence in using it, and
3) Some will actually program the computers, whether it's using "power user" tools like scripting and spreadsheets. And sone kids who never would have taken an optional computer science course might turn out to be amazing engineers!
Of course, no matter how they're detonated they don't have blinking LEDs on a PCB on someone's chest. The whole point of a bomb vest is that it's NOT OBVIOUS, so the bomber can get into position without alerting security. So is someone wearing an obvious PCB with blinking lights, and no explosives, isn't a bomber.
"It wasn't a problem in Boston either, until they attached one to a freeway support. "
They stuck blinkies in all sorts of obscure, random places, including under an overpass. Same as in the other 11 cities. None of them contained explosives, or even 'fake' explosives. They had LEDs arranged like a cartoon character, and a small battery.
Note that bombs (1) contain explosives, and (2) don't advertise themselves with blinking LEDs.
In the guerrilla advertising campaign for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" there were blinkies spread around 12 cities, 11 of which managed to figure out that LEDs are not explosives. Only Boston cops freaked out, locking the city down (despite being told by MIT that there were no explosives) and wasting $millions. Of course Boston cops aren't big on apologizing after their screw-ups; they tend to double down despite reality. The silver lining is that 11 other cities' cops were rational and did the right thing, which is cause for some optimism.
PowerPoint does a fine job of editing PowerPoint. MS supports iOS with surprisingly good versions of PowerPoint, Word, Excel, OneDrive, Outlook, etc.
Assuming that "doing work" involves writing and sharing MS Office documents, then iOS is great at "doing work".
"The problem is that nobody wants a more locked-down game console. What we want is a more open one. "
Perhaps you're not familiar with how Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft operate their console businesses, but their consoles are all much more locked down than Apple. They are much more restrictive of what they allow onto the platform, and they demand much more money from developers; Apple's review process is a piece of cake compared to getting anything through Nintendo!
Of course, all consoles are more locked down the desktops - Mac and Windows and Linux of course you can install whatever you like from wherever you like. But that's not how consoles work - they're all much more controlled/organized. :-)
Google Play, if it were on consoles, would be an example of being more open. But so far when it was tried (Ouya) the result wasn't good. Not sure that the open-ness was the cause - they also didn't make marketing muscle. But it does show that "open-ness" didn't get either developers or consumers to flock to the platform. And Google Play is tiny compared to Apple's App Store on tablets and phones. So while I like open-ness, it's hard to find proof that it wins over a well run, curated model.
You're missing Apple's strengths. They have many millions of very happy customers, and (by a wide margin) the largest and most vibrant eco-system of digital content delivery (iTunes, App Stores) with the largest collection of content (music, video, apps). And now, for $150, those millions of of people can expand their relationship with Apple, which is already their phones and tablets and computers, to their living room. You say that Apple doesn't have a franchise to roll out to serious gamers, and I say that "hardcore gamers" aren't Apple's target - Apple is much more interested in the larger market of everyone else, who want a cheap, fun device for their living room. My guess is that for $150 the Apple TV will outsell (unit sales) the $300 consoles by a wide margin.
In terms of device unit sales, you're right that Android sells more, because these days there are lots of cheap Android phones sold as "feature phones", meaning that they're used to make calls and perhaps take photo's, but not as "smart phones" - no web browsing or apps. So not relevant as a market for games.
In terms of app sales, iOS wins. The result is that app sales for iOS are much more than Android, and growing. http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/... .
So if you're picking a platform to sell games on, you're going to start with iOS, because that's where the sales are.
I know it's a popular idea that Apple's products are "too expensive" but the numbers are:
- AppleTV $149
- Xbox One $349
- PS4 $399
- WiiU $299
So the game console it much cheaper. The games will likely be cheaper, too, given Apple's pricing model (which is much more developer friendly than the disk-based consoles).
Correction "A new CDC poll shows that about half of Alabama's teens have had sex, *due to* the fact that abstinence-centric sexual education is the law in Alabama."
Numerous studies have shown that "abstinence-centric" sex ed course correlate strongly with increased teen pregnancy, sexual diseases and abortion.
Really? Powell also used private email when he was SoS, which he wiped. The only difference is that he didn't retain or turn over ANY emails. As far as I can tell, Clinton's mistake was in not straight-out wiping everything and ignoring the record retention laws, the way Powell, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc., did.