While I'm not usually part of the conspiracy crowd, I'll make an exception for this one. Did anyone expect an internal investigation of Supermicro to yield anything but an "innocent" verdict? Can you imagine the damage to Supermicro's brand had any other result been released?
I can't understand why Google is spamming us with all these permutations of what should be a simple concept: messaging with integrated voice and video chat. Hangouts does that just fine right now. Why get rid of it?
I looked at Allo and Duo and was thoroughly underwhelmed. There's nothing they do that Hangouts doesn't already do. What possible incentive would I have to switch to some other messaging app that requires everyone I chat with to switch to the same app?
Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the CIA report to push poor dumb George into a costly and foolish war.
And yet "poor dumb George" was somehow such a clever mastermind he managed to get the Democrats in Congress to go along with him. So which is it? If he was a moron then the Democrats were even more moronic. If he was a genius who outsmarted the Dems, he can't be "poor dumb George." Gotta pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.
You're leaving out the part where the UN and most European countries didn't agree with the evidence Bush was presenting.
You're leaving out the part where the main critics had political, economic, or military entanglements with Iraq that made their objections somewhat self-serving.
Iraq had a lot of centrifuges, but they weren't high enough quality to make the weapons being claimed.
We know that now. At the time nobody was sure how many centrifuges Iraq had. The Iraqis themselves stated they had enough to make a bomb and that was their stated goal. Sure, they were bluffing, but we didn't know that for sure at the time. Hindsight is always perfect. A decision had to be made at the time based on the information in hand at the time. They were, in fact, doing the exact opposite: acting like they had WMD's and were intent on hiding them from inspectors.
There was evidence of Iraq having chemical weapons 15 years prior... but the chemicals had a shelf life of 5 years, so they would have long since degraded.
This assumes no new weapons were acquired or produced during those 15 years, something no one could conclusively prove or disprove at the time.
UN inspectors weren't finding any traces of weapons programs.
You should read some of the many books based on what was going on at the time. Iraqis were doing everything in their power to obfuscate and interfere with the inspectors. Based on this behavior, the conclusion that "nothing was found" was irrelevant. The UN demanded unencumbered inspections to guarantee compliance and Iraq was doing the exact opposite.
Hussein talked a big game, wanting people to believe he had WMDs so that the rest of the world would be too afraid to attack him. Bush bought into the bluff, while most of the rest of the world didn't.
Bush believed the CIA's estimates so technically it was the CIA that "bought into the bluff." It's very trendy to blame the President these days but it requires everyone overlook the fact that a President makes decisions based on information presented to him by people who are supposed to be competent, objective, and well-informed. Bush had credible intel WMD's existed. It was flawed intel but nobody knew that for sure at the time. That, coupled with Hussein's bluster and posturing, sealed the deal. Blaming Bush requires you ignore everything that was going on at the time and assuming he somehow had magical access then to data we only know to be true now.
Gulags were actually implemented under the Russian Tsars
While true your comment is somewhat disingenuous. Other may have "invented" the gulags but it took the Soviets to perfect it into the truly horrifying and near-genocidal machine everyone now associates with the term. If you've never read "The Gulag Archipelago", do so. Even Hitler's death camps were mere amateur efforts compared to the crimes the Soviet system inflicted on its own people over decades of inhuman repression and extermination of undesirables.
It was a shameful witch hunt... Lots of people (several hundred) had their careers destroyed simply because they were investigated and things were implied...
Perhaps, but given Hollywood's current love affair with every communist/socialist/authoritarian tinpot dictatorship and their open loathing for every capitalist/republican democracy, one has to wonder just how far off the mark McCarthy was. When most of the celebrity elite loves Chavez, Castro, Lenin, and Marx more than, say, "slave-owning old white men" who founded the America those celebs live and prosper in, something is up.
Yeah there are terrorists in the middle east, but Bush used that to manipulate the public into supporting an Iraq invasion.
Some perspective is needed here. Bush, like all American presidents, was given detailed intelligence estimates by the CIA. The intel given said definitively Hussein had WMD's. Hussein's own internal intelligence said he had WMD's because they were terrified to lie to Hussein. Hussein himself stated publicly Iraq had WMD's and intended to use them.
Let's imagine this scenario: during your annual physical, your doctor says you have cancer. He recommends immediate, very invasive and debilitating surgery -- say, amputating a limb -- as the only way to save your life. Not being a fool, you go to two more doctors for second opinions. Both doctors concur with the first doctor: you have cancer and the only way to save your life is the surgery. Since you're not a doctor and you want to live, you trust the three opinions and have the surgery. Surprise! Post-op you discover you didn't have cancer and all three doctors were wrong! Only now it's too late and you're short a limb.
Did you err? No, you trusted the experts and acted on what you thought was a reliable diagnosis. Did the doctors lie to you in some grand conspiracy to get your limb amputated? No, they were mistaken, an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens despite everyone's best efforts.
Bush didn't have a crystal ball. If the entire US intelligence apparatus said Hussein had WMD's and was ready to use them, the president has to decide what to do about it. Bush asked for military action and Congress -- including nearly every major Democrat -- agreed. This is not "manipulating" things. If anyone can be accused of manipulation it might be the CIA but only if they refused to share any doubts they had about their own intelligence with the president.
In 2017, the company made four hundred and eighty-eight million dollars
This is a highly misleading (purposefully misleading?) statement where "made" is pretty ambiguous. I looked up APS's 2017 statement and found the following for Pinnacle West Capital, their parent company:
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (NYSE: PNW) today reported consolidated net income attributable to common shareholders of $488.5 million
So they had revenue of $488 million. That is not the same as profit even though the article tries to conflate the two. I tried finding a quick link to their 2017 profits and came up empty. However, they did report a Q1 2018 profit of $23.3 million on revenue of nearly $677.7 million. Even assuming a $30 million profit per quarter, that's only $120 million profit per year, far less than the $480 million the article would lead you to believe they "made."
I won't quibble whether or not APS makes "too much" profit. That's not the point. The point is people need to understand the different between revenue and profit when they're griping about "greed." Words matter.
I was paying right at $200/mo for Comcast XFinity. About half that was for 150Mbit (downstream) Internet with no data cap (that's extra, of course). The other half was for STANDARD DEFINITION basic cable.
I'd happily have taken Google Fiber if it were available but AT&T GigaPower got here first. Now I have 1000Mbit down/800mbit up, HD cable channels (and many more than Comcast offered), three set-top boxes (only one with Comcast), and a DVR (none included with Comcast)...all for only $80/mo.
Is it any wonder people are ditching traditional cable companies?
How is punching down on afflicted people acceptable?How is punching down on afflicted people acceptable?
When you're punching their government instead of "afflicted people" because their government is acting like a rogue state with nuclear weapons? Just a guess.
Keep in mind we offered humanitarian aid to many of these "afflicted people" only to see their government steal it, sell it on the black market, and use the funds to buy palaces and weapons.
I mean, why use military means when you can use economic means? Sanctions work as a stick. A carrot? We'll give you a low-interest loan to build you a brand spankin' new clean nuclear plant and run it for 40 years...
Given the abject failure of economic sanctions against nuclear-armed states like North Korea and Iran, I can't tell if your statement is supposed to be sarcasm or not.
It's worth pointing out because there are people who actually argue that America needs to spend $600 billion a year to defend itself from Russia, Iran and North Korea.
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." - Ronald Reagan
Weakness invites challenge. Any student of history knows this. Britain and the US tried this after WWI and the world reaped tens of millions of dead as a result. That is but one example of many throughout thousands of years of human history. The surest way to avoid war is to have such overwhelming might that no other state in its right mind would ever consider taking up arms against you.
You miss much of the point of Eisenhower's argument. While he did rail against the military-industrial complex, his statement was more a condemnation of armed conflict than arms spending. As a former general, Eisenhower knew quite well that pacifism is a dangerous fantasy. It's just as hard to feed the hungry when they're being crushed under the heel of a conqueror because their country couldn't defend them.
If their novelties take off without any intervention or supervision from the government, we could be inviting a nightmarish set of security and privacy vulnerabilities into the world.
And what makes anyone naive enough to assume that government "supervision" would somehow magically immunize us from said vulnerabilities? Or that government wouldn't misuse data gathering to commit human rights abuses?
Sigh...why is the default knee-jerk reaction to a potential crisis almost always "hey, let's find a way to depend on GOVERNMENT to fix this for us! Government is mighty, all knowing, all seeing, efficient, incorruptible, and always benevolent, right?"
So who do I sue when their customer leaves the default password set and the device is used to DDOS me?
If you can prove the manufacturer of the device was negligent then you have a case to sue them. Otherwise you can sue those who left their devices unsecured. Those are the actors involved so this is rather silly question.
The free market does not solve ever problem. The free market won't solve this problem, either.
Why? It's a serious question. Why can't the market solve this problem? The only reason I can surmise is you think consumers are simply too stupid to understand that secure devices are a good idea. While I agree security is often given a low priority compared to usability -- the two are always in opposition, by the way -- the main reason people prefer usability over security is they haven't been bitten yet. Those who have tend to take security very seriously, thus disproving your assertion.
It's a pity that it may take things like security breaches and malware infiltration to wake people up but that's not the point. Only a completely obstinate fool would ignore security after such a breach, and if they did, they deserve to suffer the consequences.
Oooohhhhh ok. What a brillinat idea. Well, I'm sure Joe and Jane public will get riiiiiight on top of that, intelligently voting with their dollars for the product that has an effective default password policy.
It is not the government's job to protect people from their own ignorance. It is, however, the individual's job to make minimally educated decisions about what they purchase. To do otherwise is generate a populace that is too stupid to understand what's in their best interests, thus cementing their reliance on an "elite" to tell them what they can do, what they can't do, what they should say, what they should think, and how they should behave.
Come to think of it, that's probably your idea of the ideal society. What a frightening concept.
It's the mandate or nothing. Companies have had DECADES to understand that default passwords are a terrible idea.
Companies produce products their customers elect to purchase. Period. The reason companies have stuck with default passwords is because consumers have demanded ease of use over security. Mandating this change via legislation will by default result in more customer dissatisfaction simply because customers have not demanded said changes in meaningful numbers.
We can debate whether or not consumers are acting wisely with such decisions but that's not going to magically change consumer outlook on this issue. What's needed is education of consumers as to why security is important. To impose security on them when they don't understand why it's being done is a recipe for consumer revolt whilst simultaneously ignoring the very important task of educating them.
For the purpose of a review, is it more or less representative to tune every aspect of the system like this? When a reviewer tunes and tweaks every possible setting, the results really are only applicable to that motherboard + RAM combination. I would rather have apples-to-apples comparisons.
Apples-to-apples is the obvious ideal but that's not what happened here. The Intel platform was tuned; the AMD platform was left at the defaults.
The silicon needed for a typical CPU only costs about $5
While I'm no fan of Intel and their underhanded tactics vis-a-vis these benchmarks, this statement is so horrifically misleading can't let it stand.
The cost of a typical CPU is not just the cost of the silicon it's printed on. Literally thousands of engineers labor for years -- sometimes decades -- to develop the CPU design, the lithographic technologies, the fab designs, the materials design, and countless other tasks required to produce a modern CPU. The aggregate cost for such endeavors runs into the billions of dollars. These costs must be recouped by amortizing them across each and every CPU sold otherwise the entire process loses money, bankrupts the company, and no further CPU development occurs.
Please try to understand how R&D works and how those costs are integrated into the price of every product you consume, everywhere, all the time.
Do you leave your house unlocked because keys are too hard to use?
Sigh...
Please try to understand that because someone is against a particular idea does not automatically mean they are in favor of the polar opposite of it. This type of thinking is extremist thinking and ruins any chance at useful dialog where both parties can try to understand each other.
I am in favor of companies stopping this "default password" crap. However, the idea of a government entity mandating it makes me uncomfortable. In choosing the lesser of evils, I would be against such a mandate and depend upon customers pressuring their vendors to change their behavior using the most effective tool known: their wallets.
The studios again can't figure out how to get it right. None of them thought Netflix would amount to anything so they allowed it to germinate. Once it took off they did what any clueless, unimaginative Hollywood exec always does when faced with a competitor's success: copy it.
Only it doesn't work out so well. The fragmentation and exclusivity is turning off consumers, myself included. It becomes such an amazing pain to find the content legally that it's just easier and faster to get it in a torrent. I'd pay for it if I could get it from a single source (or a reasonably small number of them, perhaps 2-3 tops), if it came in a high-bitrate H.265.MKV file with lossless audio, and without ads or onerous copy protection. I have about 1,300 HD movies on my Plex along with about 3,000 TV episodes. I don't even own a Blu-ray player anymore. I doubt I ever will. That is how consumers want to consume content.
If detonation happens to early then the explosively-formed penetrator won't be effective on contact, and the same is true if the detonation is too late./quote>
FTFY. Shaped charge weapons do not operate on the principle of plasma and do not generate near enough energy to create plasma. The work on the principle of using a shaped chemical explosive which deforms a metal liner -- frequently copper or other dense, malleable metals -- into a long, thin penetrator and accelerating it to high speeds in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm not usually part of the conspiracy crowd, I'll make an exception for this one. Did anyone expect an internal investigation of Supermicro to yield anything but an "innocent" verdict? Can you imagine the damage to Supermicro's brand had any other result been released?
I can't understand why Google is spamming us with all these permutations of what should be a simple concept: messaging with integrated voice and video chat. Hangouts does that just fine right now. Why get rid of it?
I looked at Allo and Duo and was thoroughly underwhelmed. There's nothing they do that Hangouts doesn't already do. What possible incentive would I have to switch to some other messaging app that requires everyone I chat with to switch to the same app?
Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the CIA report to push poor dumb George into a costly and foolish war.
And yet "poor dumb George" was somehow such a clever mastermind he managed to get the Democrats in Congress to go along with him. So which is it? If he was a moron then the Democrats were even more moronic. If he was a genius who outsmarted the Dems, he can't be "poor dumb George." Gotta pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.
You're leaving out the part where the UN and most European countries didn't agree with the evidence Bush was presenting.
You're leaving out the part where the main critics had political, economic, or military entanglements with Iraq that made their objections somewhat self-serving.
Iraq had a lot of centrifuges, but they weren't high enough quality to make the weapons being claimed.
We know that now. At the time nobody was sure how many centrifuges Iraq had. The Iraqis themselves stated they had enough to make a bomb and that was their stated goal. Sure, they were bluffing, but we didn't know that for sure at the time. Hindsight is always perfect. A decision had to be made at the time based on the information in hand at the time. They were, in fact, doing the exact opposite: acting like they had WMD's and were intent on hiding them from inspectors.
There was evidence of Iraq having chemical weapons 15 years prior... but the chemicals had a shelf life of 5 years, so they would have long since degraded.
This assumes no new weapons were acquired or produced during those 15 years, something no one could conclusively prove or disprove at the time.
UN inspectors weren't finding any traces of weapons programs.
You should read some of the many books based on what was going on at the time. Iraqis were doing everything in their power to obfuscate and interfere with the inspectors. Based on this behavior, the conclusion that "nothing was found" was irrelevant. The UN demanded unencumbered inspections to guarantee compliance and Iraq was doing the exact opposite.
Hussein talked a big game, wanting people to believe he had WMDs so that the rest of the world would be too afraid to attack him. Bush bought into the bluff, while most of the rest of the world didn't.
Bush believed the CIA's estimates so technically it was the CIA that "bought into the bluff." It's very trendy to blame the President these days but it requires everyone overlook the fact that a President makes decisions based on information presented to him by people who are supposed to be competent, objective, and well-informed. Bush had credible intel WMD's existed. It was flawed intel but nobody knew that for sure at the time. That, coupled with Hussein's bluster and posturing, sealed the deal. Blaming Bush requires you ignore everything that was going on at the time and assuming he somehow had magical access then to data we only know to be true now.
Gulags were actually implemented under the Russian Tsars
While true your comment is somewhat disingenuous. Other may have "invented" the gulags but it took the Soviets to perfect it into the truly horrifying and near-genocidal machine everyone now associates with the term. If you've never read "The Gulag Archipelago", do so. Even Hitler's death camps were mere amateur efforts compared to the crimes the Soviet system inflicted on its own people over decades of inhuman repression and extermination of undesirables.
It was a shameful witch hunt... Lots of people (several hundred) had their careers destroyed simply because they were investigated and things were implied...
Perhaps, but given Hollywood's current love affair with every communist/socialist/authoritarian tinpot dictatorship and their open loathing for every capitalist/republican democracy, one has to wonder just how far off the mark McCarthy was. When most of the celebrity elite loves Chavez, Castro, Lenin, and Marx more than, say, "slave-owning old white men" who founded the America those celebs live and prosper in, something is up.
Yeah there are terrorists in the middle east, but Bush used that to manipulate the public into supporting an Iraq invasion.
Some perspective is needed here. Bush, like all American presidents, was given detailed intelligence estimates by the CIA. The intel given said definitively Hussein had WMD's. Hussein's own internal intelligence said he had WMD's because they were terrified to lie to Hussein. Hussein himself stated publicly Iraq had WMD's and intended to use them.
Let's imagine this scenario: during your annual physical, your doctor says you have cancer. He recommends immediate, very invasive and debilitating surgery -- say, amputating a limb -- as the only way to save your life. Not being a fool, you go to two more doctors for second opinions. Both doctors concur with the first doctor: you have cancer and the only way to save your life is the surgery. Since you're not a doctor and you want to live, you trust the three opinions and have the surgery. Surprise! Post-op you discover you didn't have cancer and all three doctors were wrong! Only now it's too late and you're short a limb.
Did you err? No, you trusted the experts and acted on what you thought was a reliable diagnosis. Did the doctors lie to you in some grand conspiracy to get your limb amputated? No, they were mistaken, an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens despite everyone's best efforts.
Bush didn't have a crystal ball. If the entire US intelligence apparatus said Hussein had WMD's and was ready to use them, the president has to decide what to do about it. Bush asked for military action and Congress -- including nearly every major Democrat -- agreed. This is not "manipulating" things. If anyone can be accused of manipulation it might be the CIA but only if they refused to share any doubts they had about their own intelligence with the president.
YAWN...Westworld has had this tech for, like, forever. Samsung is just playing catch up to Delos like they always have. Old news.
In 2017, the company made four hundred and eighty-eight million dollars
This is a highly misleading (purposefully misleading?) statement where "made" is pretty ambiguous. I looked up APS's 2017 statement and found the following for Pinnacle West Capital, their parent company:
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (NYSE: PNW) today reported consolidated net income attributable to common shareholders of $488.5 million
So they had revenue of $488 million. That is not the same as profit even though the article tries to conflate the two. I tried finding a quick link to their 2017 profits and came up empty. However, they did report a Q1 2018 profit of $23.3 million on revenue of nearly $677.7 million. Even assuming a $30 million profit per quarter, that's only $120 million profit per year, far less than the $480 million the article would lead you to believe they "made."
I won't quibble whether or not APS makes "too much" profit. That's not the point. The point is people need to understand the different between revenue and profit when they're griping about "greed." Words matter.
I was paying right at $200/mo for Comcast XFinity. About half that was for 150Mbit (downstream) Internet with no data cap (that's extra, of course). The other half was for STANDARD DEFINITION basic cable.
I'd happily have taken Google Fiber if it were available but AT&T GigaPower got here first. Now I have 1000Mbit down/800mbit up, HD cable channels (and many more than Comcast offered), three set-top boxes (only one with Comcast), and a DVR (none included with Comcast)...all for only $80/mo.
Is it any wonder people are ditching traditional cable companies?
Given that it's a rare household that doesn't have WiFi these days, why on earth would you leave it to download this over your mobile data?
How is punching down on afflicted people acceptable?How is punching down on afflicted people acceptable?
When you're punching their government instead of "afflicted people" because their government is acting like a rogue state with nuclear weapons? Just a guess.
Keep in mind we offered humanitarian aid to many of these "afflicted people" only to see their government steal it, sell it on the black market, and use the funds to buy palaces and weapons.
I mean, why use military means when you can use economic means? Sanctions work as a stick. A carrot? We'll give you a low-interest loan to build you a brand spankin' new clean nuclear plant and run it for 40 years...
Given the abject failure of economic sanctions against nuclear-armed states like North Korea and Iran, I can't tell if your statement is supposed to be sarcasm or not.
It's worth pointing out because there are people who actually argue that America needs to spend $600 billion a year to defend itself from Russia, Iran and North Korea.
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." - Ronald Reagan
Weakness invites challenge. Any student of history knows this. Britain and the US tried this after WWI and the world reaped tens of millions of dead as a result. That is but one example of many throughout thousands of years of human history. The surest way to avoid war is to have such overwhelming might that no other state in its right mind would ever consider taking up arms against you.
You miss much of the point of Eisenhower's argument. While he did rail against the military-industrial complex, his statement was more a condemnation of armed conflict than arms spending. As a former general, Eisenhower knew quite well that pacifism is a dangerous fantasy. It's just as hard to feed the hungry when they're being crushed under the heel of a conqueror because their country couldn't defend them.
If their novelties take off without any intervention or supervision from the government, we could be inviting a nightmarish set of security and privacy vulnerabilities into the world.
And what makes anyone naive enough to assume that government "supervision" would somehow magically immunize us from said vulnerabilities? Or that government wouldn't misuse data gathering to commit human rights abuses?
Sigh...why is the default knee-jerk reaction to a potential crisis almost always "hey, let's find a way to depend on GOVERNMENT to fix this for us! Government is mighty, all knowing, all seeing, efficient, incorruptible, and always benevolent, right?"
So who do I sue when their customer leaves the default password set and the device is used to DDOS me?
If you can prove the manufacturer of the device was negligent then you have a case to sue them. Otherwise you can sue those who left their devices unsecured. Those are the actors involved so this is rather silly question.
The free market does not solve ever problem. The free market won't solve this problem, either.
Why? It's a serious question. Why can't the market solve this problem? The only reason I can surmise is you think consumers are simply too stupid to understand that secure devices are a good idea. While I agree security is often given a low priority compared to usability -- the two are always in opposition, by the way -- the main reason people prefer usability over security is they haven't been bitten yet. Those who have tend to take security very seriously, thus disproving your assertion.
It's a pity that it may take things like security breaches and malware infiltration to wake people up but that's not the point. Only a completely obstinate fool would ignore security after such a breach, and if they did, they deserve to suffer the consequences.
Oooohhhhh ok. What a brillinat idea. Well, I'm sure Joe and Jane public will get riiiiiight on top of that, intelligently voting with their dollars for the product that has an effective default password policy.
It is not the government's job to protect people from their own ignorance. It is, however, the individual's job to make minimally educated decisions about what they purchase. To do otherwise is generate a populace that is too stupid to understand what's in their best interests, thus cementing their reliance on an "elite" to tell them what they can do, what they can't do, what they should say, what they should think, and how they should behave.
Come to think of it, that's probably your idea of the ideal society. What a frightening concept.
It's the mandate or nothing. Companies have had DECADES to understand that default passwords are a terrible idea.
Companies produce products their customers elect to purchase. Period. The reason companies have stuck with default passwords is because consumers have demanded ease of use over security. Mandating this change via legislation will by default result in more customer dissatisfaction simply because customers have not demanded said changes in meaningful numbers.
We can debate whether or not consumers are acting wisely with such decisions but that's not going to magically change consumer outlook on this issue. What's needed is education of consumers as to why security is important. To impose security on them when they don't understand why it's being done is a recipe for consumer revolt whilst simultaneously ignoring the very important task of educating them.
For the purpose of a review, is it more or less representative to tune every aspect of the system like this? When a reviewer tunes and tweaks every possible setting, the results really are only applicable to that motherboard + RAM combination. I would rather have apples-to-apples comparisons.
Apples-to-apples is the obvious ideal but that's not what happened here. The Intel platform was tuned; the AMD platform was left at the defaults.
The silicon needed for a typical CPU only costs about $5
While I'm no fan of Intel and their underhanded tactics vis-a-vis these benchmarks, this statement is so horrifically misleading can't let it stand.
The cost of a typical CPU is not just the cost of the silicon it's printed on. Literally thousands of engineers labor for years -- sometimes decades -- to develop the CPU design, the lithographic technologies, the fab designs, the materials design, and countless other tasks required to produce a modern CPU. The aggregate cost for such endeavors runs into the billions of dollars. These costs must be recouped by amortizing them across each and every CPU sold otherwise the entire process loses money, bankrupts the company, and no further CPU development occurs.
Please try to understand how R&D works and how those costs are integrated into the price of every product you consume, everywhere, all the time.
So you are the champion of the flashing 12:00?
You want security cameras to be wide open?
Do you leave your house unlocked because keys are too hard to use?
Sigh...
Please try to understand that because someone is against a particular idea does not automatically mean they are in favor of the polar opposite of it. This type of thinking is extremist thinking and ruins any chance at useful dialog where both parties can try to understand each other.
I am in favor of companies stopping this "default password" crap. However, the idea of a government entity mandating it makes me uncomfortable. In choosing the lesser of evils, I would be against such a mandate and depend upon customers pressuring their vendors to change their behavior using the most effective tool known: their wallets.
The studios again can't figure out how to get it right. None of them thought Netflix would amount to anything so they allowed it to germinate. Once it took off they did what any clueless, unimaginative Hollywood exec always does when faced with a competitor's success: copy it.
Only it doesn't work out so well. The fragmentation and exclusivity is turning off consumers, myself included. It becomes such an amazing pain to find the content legally that it's just easier and faster to get it in a torrent. I'd pay for it if I could get it from a single source (or a reasonably small number of them, perhaps 2-3 tops), if it came in a high-bitrate H.265.MKV file with lossless audio, and without ads or onerous copy protection. I have about 1,300 HD movies on my Plex along with about 3,000 TV episodes. I don't even own a Blu-ray player anymore. I doubt I ever will. That is how consumers want to consume content.
If detonation happens to early then the explosively-formed penetrator won't be effective on contact, and the same is true if the detonation is too late./quote>
FTFY. Shaped charge weapons do not operate on the principle of plasma and do not generate near enough energy to create plasma. The work on the principle of using a shaped chemical explosive which deforms a metal liner -- frequently copper or other dense, malleable metals -- into a long, thin penetrator and accelerating it to high speeds in the process.