Cookies? Not me, I wouldn't want to be suspected of being a terrorist trying to poison/incapacitate the flight crew. The best I could do, would be a coupon for a free box of cookies at Ms. Fields, or a coupon for a free custom drink at Starbucks.
Remember, correctly executed withdrawl is just as effective a form of birth control as a correctly applied condom, but a greater share of condom users use them correctly than those who attempt pulling out.
Here were some of the problems with the studies you've alluded to:
A noted limitation to these previous studies' findings is that pre-ejaculate samples were analyzed after the critical two-minute point. That is, looking for motile sperm in small amounts of pre-ejaculate via microscope after two minutes – when the sample has most likely dried – makes examination and evaluation "extremely difficult."[4] Thus, in March 2011 a team of researchers assembled 27 male volunteers and analyzed their pre-ejaculate samples within two minutes after producing them.
The researchers found that 11 of the 27 men (41%) produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained sperm, and 10 of these samples (37%) contained a "fair amount" of motile sperm (i.e. as few as 1 million to as many as 35 million).
Of course, that study as well is not completely definitive either.
However, two things need to be kept in mind. First, the study suggests that some men can leak sperm into their pre-ejaculate (though the authors do not extrapolate on this supposition and the possible causes of such a phenomenon). Second, the authors admit that some of their subjects who submitted sperm-positive pre-ejaculate samples could have actually used their ejaculate – due to failure of producing pre-ejaculate – to avoid the "embarrassment" of not producing pre-ejaculate.
So I'd say, the jury is still out on this question.
Read the terms of services for Google Drive. The free trial for writing data to it is good for 2 years, but the data itself will be held in perpetuity so you will always be able to read that data later on (at least, according to their terms of services, I don't actually know how this will play out in practice).
This terms of services is a direct result of the deleting fiasco that happened with Yahoo/flickr. There was such a backlash against Yahoo for deleting the pictures of their users, that the terms of services were revised for most cloud storage solutions after that.
What laws have they broken in Amsterdam? Do you know? The article doesn't seem to know either. Limousines seem to operate fine in Amsterdam. Limousines are just not allowed to use the taxi stands. Why is Uber not allowed to operate the same way as limousines?
That was my first thought. And before someone gets upset at needing a mobile device or a computing device in order to generate that pin number. Google even allows you to use pre-made pin codes, so if you're ever caught in a foreign land where the authorities are about to knock down your door, you just need to swallow the paper containing those codes.
I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.
It doesn't matter. Unless there was a signed release from her niece, the woman doesn't actually own the picture. And at the very least, without informed consent from the niece for her picture to be used in a sting operation, the picture of the niece should have been pixelited, cut out, or not used at all.
the point is, you make it sound like celebrities were posting naked selfies on the internet and then got hacked. what happened was people took private pictures on their private phones, and assumed that because the phone was in their possession their private photos were safe. they didn't intend to make them accessible online. so stop trying to slutshame them.
I was criticizing Apple, not the celebrities. Admittedly, I do not have an iPhone. I only heard second hand accounts of what the iPhone was doing with the pictures.
If what you're saying is correct about the automatic backup, then my original statement about Apple stands.
the point is, the hack was due to a weakness in the security protocols, not a technical exploit of the servers or something. Also the hack was targeted at these people. look up 'spear fishing" when you have a chance.
Finally, you're willing to admit there was some weakness in the security protocols. That's far better than what I've heard the current CEO of Apple admit to.
Yes, I know what 'spear fishing' means in the context of security. And yes, the hack was targeted at these celebrities with iPhones. Had there been a similar security flaw with Android, I have no doubt that the hacker would have found some women celebrities to target on Android as well. It's not like he was targeting just one individual, he was targeting a class of individuals. And he could easily have found the same class of individuals on Android.
a couple corrections to your inaccuracies (intentional?):
You tell me. Are you intentionally ignoring the claims from this security researcher? Or was your ignorance unintentional?
* iphones back up automatically to icloud.
This point needs some explaining. Which parts get backed up? Plus, I'm not sure how it contradicts what I've said already. Are you implying that the default is not to continue to upload pictures to iCloud once you've uploaded at least one?
* the exploit in #celebgate #thefappening was taking advantage of weak passwords and/or reset questions. it's not that the infrastructure was insecure, it was user error in selecting weak passwords / reset questions.
That's a pretty lame defense. Can you point to an analysis or an explanation to back that up? I've heard the same denial by the CEO of Apple on Charlie Rose, but I didn't believe it. Our infrastructure is secure, is not enough of an explanation. Security is not some binary concept. Security is a very layered concept.
For example, weak passwords can be prevented at the input level (although obviously, not all weak passwords can be prevented, that is why you rely on multiple layers). Accounts can be notified when someone else is trying to get into your account with an incorrect password. Accounts can lock out untrusted ip addresses or untrusted applications when there is the suspicion of a targeted brute force attack on that account. Back up email addresses can be used for password recovery. Even reset questions can be crafted very carefully, and then only unlock an account through the cell phone number of the person in question (after all, all those users who were compromised were iPhone users, so Apple knew their phone numbers).
* in response apple has widely rolled out two-factor. some people will always set their passwords to be '12345', but at least with 2FA being very easily accessible then people have less and less of an excuse.
Didn't they already have two-factor authentication already? If not, the problem is worst than I had thought. Even Twitter, a company widely known for its lack of security, deployed two factor authentication last year (not that everybody is going to use it, but like you said, people will have less of an excuse at least).
Are we good now? kthx.
Security is about hardening the weakest links in the chain. Again, you have nothing to brag about if your phone has the best encryption with all the latest buzzwords that go with it, if all your naked pictures end up on an insecure cloud infrastructure as soon as you take them.
As a community we've always been skeptical of vaporware, especially when a lagging company announces vaporware in response to an innovator releasing a tangible product. Can we hold android to this standard?
A lagging company? The last I heard, it wasn't Android that automatically uploaded naked selfies to iCloud to only have them leak to the public. Also, please note that this encryption feature doesn't even address the original iOS problem. If your phone automatically uploads pictures by default to an insecure infrastructure, then it really doesn't matter if the copy you have on your phone is encrypted or not.
I work with several IT guys that are former military. They're good guys and work hard but not one of them is an actual geek... If it isn't something they're trained in they just don't do very well. Small sample size in (my office) but I don't see it.
This echos what I was told by IT military instructors.
The instructors are not allowed to choose their students. So the enlisted man who programs and built a mobile app in his spare time won't be allowed to follow a course on building mobile apps, but the officer who has no technical aptitude whatsoever has to be hand-held all the way through such a course because he will be the only one allowed to build such an app for the military in the first place.
This is not to say that all military men aren't geeks. Like I said, there are some. It's just that you have to take into account what they did at their jobs, and what they actually like to do during their spare time, to get the most complete picture.
... what was actually going on here. The republicans are against lots of government regulation. They just don't like it in general.
You can't just blame the republicans.
As soon as the lobbyist Tom Wheeler was made FCC chairman and his former cronies from Comcast and Verizon made attorneys for the FCC, the fight for 'Net Neutrality' under Obama was lost.
The people who keep sending comments for 'Net Neutrality' to the FCC are either ignorant of that fact, or they're just naive. These industry lobbyists currently in charge of the FCC are not going to suddenly change side. This is not the Supreme Court. They're not guaranteed that cushy job for life. And once they stop working for the FCC, they'll start lobbying again for the industry to get paid off for what they did while they were in charge of the FCC. This revolving door of excessive pay offs is extremely well documented.
The cynical in me says there isn't any need for high precision. As long as the facial recognition system can pick out foreign faces over native ones. All the system really needs to do is to give plausible justification for racial profiling.
Article 25 of the Constitution of the UAE provides for the equitable treatment of persons with regard to race, nationality, religious beliefs or social status. However...
[...]
Foreign laborers in Dubai often live in conditions described by Human Rights Watch as being "less than humane", and was the subject of the documentary, Slaves in Dubai.
At least, that's what the cynical in me says. I have no other basis for that theory. The other reason, which would be much more likely, is to justify a shiny new toy for a police force which has plenty of funding and to grab some headlines in a mainstream press which really doesn't know what's feasible and what's not.
Posting for a paywall article? Budget must be low at Slashdot to advertise for wallstreet journal. You getting 20% of the signup costs?
Great article i bet, shame i'am too fucking tight to give you 20p to read it.
If you don't like ads, then you shouldn't read it anyhow. The ad for the paywall article is about making modular ad walls that when combined can make even bigger ad walls.
Think Shinjuku Tokyo Japan, but everywhere, in your home, at the groceries, at work, etc., brought to you by Google and as easy to assemble as legos.
If you can't let your customers send you money, then there's not much point in being in business. Also, whoever was responsible for setting up their payment system won't be laying claim to that fact in their advertising and testimonial material.
RedBox was a scam. It wasn't a technical issue that shut them down. It was most likely the number of charge-backs that did. I'm just surprised that it took this long.
They would frequently email you rental coupon codes that allowed you to rent a movie for free (which really, was the only reason I'd get a movie from them, their selection was mostly B movies that you had already seen, or that you wouldn't bother to rent in the first place, so when I had a free code, I'd force myself to to go through their selection to find something I'd like). Then three months later, after having returned your movie on time three months earlier, you'd get a ridiculous charge on your credit card for not having returned the disc to the right rental kiosk.
The main problem was that there were two kinds of red rental kiosks, sometimes they were both even in the same store. One was called RedBox. And I forget what the other was called. In theory, they were both owned by different companies, but in actual practice, they were both using red kiosks and very similar branding, they both accepted the same custom DVD plastic cases, and according to other customer complaints, both boxes were also operated and serviced by the same technicians.
And the large fine would work both ways, you'd get a DVD from RedBox and accidentally return it to the wrong one, or you'd get a DVD from the other one and accidentally returned to RedBox (either because you were an idiot, or because you told someone else in your household to return the movie to a red box), and the drastic outcome was identical. Even thought the company had your email address on your file, it didn't bother to notify you that it didn't receive the DVD on its end. It just charged you after three months. And even thought, this problem was happening very frequently and the boxes both shared the same company that serviced them, the companies were apparently not capable of telling each other about any extra DVD they had received by mistake.
Which is why I think this systematic failure on their end was really an intentional attempt at defrauding people. No doubt, the start up had a legitimate business model at the beginning, but once it couldn't compete on selection (even for the extra convenience and the very reasonable price of $1 a day), instead of opting for bankruptcy, it started scamming people in a systematic way.
Small companies often have barely enough to pay employees that are present. To be paying for employees on leave is something else, male or female.
Some European countries deal with maternity/paternity leave at the government level. This way, even if your start-up has three employees, and if one goes on leave, it's the government that pays the 80% of his/her salary. The same goes for child care. Child care is heavily subsidized at the government level.
Of course, this increases the tax-burden on everyone, but this makes maternity/paternity leave much more feasible for even small startups where a long maternity leave could make or break the company, and would therefore could lead to drastically different hiring decisions.
But these 716 women who had made it past all that shit and were working in the tech sector found that once you get there, it sucks to be in a job where you're treated poorly because you're a woman, or you feel isolated because everybody else is a guy.
Millions of men could say something similar about the sector. Not everybody is cut out to be in IT, or to be a developer. Also, the time commitment can be huge (unless you're one of the few lucky ones). It's also very difficult for men to maintain a normal relationship, let alone, raise a family, with the kind of performance they're expected to maintain at work.
That is why. Those 716 women are not alone. Countless men have called it quits in those types of jobs, and moved on to other jobs that are more administrative or managerial in nature.
From what I understand, Intel is working towards riding the Android train, and they supposedly have more engineers working on Android than even Google does....
That's not hard. HTC even has had more software engineers working on Android than Google does, for far longer than Intel has. Google seems to think that if it increases the number of developers working on the Android team, it could make things worse.
This is not to say that your main point is not valid. It is. Intel is indeed investing heavily on Android. And thank god that it has. The much faster x86 Intel emulator has actually been a life saver for many Android Developers.
This Attorney General Eric Holder sounds just like another pedophile, or another sexual predator in the making.
He's using the same exact argument school officials used for taking secret webcam pictures of teenagers in the privacy of their own beds. And he's using the same argument San Francisco cops used for accessing the full prescription drug records of any woman they were dating, or any woman they had any personal sexual interest in.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking away the sexual privacy, nor the medical privacy, of sexual offenders or drug offenders, but if that means doing away with the sexual privacy and the medical privacy, of every man, woman, and child, because law enforcement finds it just more convenient to place peeping holes into every possible bedroom, every private medicine cabinet, and every possible device out there, then things have gone really too far.
There must be some accountability about what specific information is being viewed by those law enforcement officials. There must be some discrimination about what is being viewed. There must be an audit trail. Right now, there isn't. And there must be disclosure made to the people being looked into, to make sure they're not just being stalked, or spied upon, just because a cop, or a government official has a crush on them.
I chose to respond by going out at night and spreading my garbage up and down the streets. Fuckers wanna play passive aggressive games? I can play them too.
I can see the passive part, but where is the aggressive part?
Did you also stop smiling, waving, and saying “Hey-Diddly-Ho! Mr. garbage men" every time they drove by?
Apple has locked it down? So what? How is that any different from the last several years where competitors have had NFC and payment support?
When the ISIS Association initially locked down NFC, it only locked down access to the NFC secure element. In other words, third party developers were still able to use NFC for other purposes, than making payment applications with it. In that sense, Apple is far more paranoid and repressive than ISIS itself.
As a user, I personally couldn't care less about the latest power struggle between big players. I just like to be able to read my Clipper card with it. And I just like to pair with my speakers/my headset, or my friends devices, without having to even think about it (or without being forced to buy NFC Bluetooth speakers at twice the price because they an exclusive deal with Apple).
Can we go ahead and explain to Uber and Lyft that they need taxi licenses and to pay their share or gtfo.
Explain all you want. In some cities, taxi medallions are no longer being sold and the supply of taxis is being artificially limited.
Personally, I live in San Francisco and I'm sick and tired of not being able to catch a cab during peak hours. So I end up have to drive my car to work and pay exorbitant parking fees whenever I have to go somewhere after work that's not easily reachable via public transportation.
And no, I'm not black, in case you were wondering. Although, I suspect that increasing the supply of taxi-like services like Uber would solve some of that problem as well. If there is an oversupply of taxis or taxi-like services, then these taxi drivers are actually much less able to discriminate.
Unlike yourself, Quickflix has obtained all necessary Australian rights to the content on its platform, faithfully meets all necessary security requirements, including geo-filtering imposed by the content rights holders, and...
Netflix has geo-filtering in place, hence the need for private VPNs. In fact, if the reverse was true and non-Australians watched Quickflix movies through VPNs, I very much doubt that Quickflix could do anything about it.
My guess is that Quickflix is just posturing to get better terms on content licensing. 200,000 is an awful big guess estimate. VPNs are not free (the free ones just aren't reliable). I doubt very much that 200,000 people would put down money for a VPN subscription, on top of a Netflix subscription, on top of broadband service. If people are getting VPN subscriptions, it's probably for porn, business, and/or free video streaming services like hulu.com or thedarewall.com
Slashdot Mirror
Cookies? Not me, I wouldn't want to be suspected of being a terrorist trying to poison/incapacitate the flight crew. The best I could do, would be a coupon for a free box of cookies at Ms. Fields, or a coupon for a free custom drink at Starbucks.
Remember, correctly executed withdrawl is just as effective a form of birth control as a correctly applied condom, but a greater share of condom users use them correctly than those who attempt pulling out.
Here were some of the problems with the studies you've alluded to:
A noted limitation to these previous studies' findings is that pre-ejaculate samples were analyzed after the critical two-minute point. That is, looking for motile sperm in small amounts of pre-ejaculate via microscope after two minutes – when the sample has most likely dried – makes examination and evaluation "extremely difficult."[4] Thus, in March 2011 a team of researchers assembled 27 male volunteers and analyzed their pre-ejaculate samples within two minutes after producing them.
The researchers found that 11 of the 27 men (41%) produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained sperm, and 10 of these samples (37%) contained a "fair amount" of motile sperm (i.e. as few as 1 million to as many as 35 million).
Of course, that study as well is not completely definitive either.
However, two things need to be kept in mind. First, the study suggests that some men can leak sperm into their pre-ejaculate (though the authors do not extrapolate on this supposition and the possible causes of such a phenomenon). Second, the authors admit that some of their subjects who submitted sperm-positive pre-ejaculate samples could have actually used their ejaculate – due to failure of producing pre-ejaculate – to avoid the "embarrassment" of not producing pre-ejaculate.
So I'd say, the jury is still out on this question.
Read the terms of services for Google Drive. The free trial for writing data to it is good for 2 years, but the data itself will be held in perpetuity so you will always be able to read that data later on (at least, according to their terms of services, I don't actually know how this will play out in practice).
This terms of services is a direct result of the deleting fiasco that happened with Yahoo/flickr. There was such a backlash against Yahoo for deleting the pictures of their users, that the terms of services were revised for most cloud storage solutions after that.
What laws have they broken in Amsterdam? Do you know? The article doesn't seem to know either. Limousines seem to operate fine in Amsterdam. Limousines are just not allowed to use the taxi stands. Why is Uber not allowed to operate the same way as limousines?
Ever heard of https://support.google.com/acc...
That was my first thought. And before someone gets upset at needing a mobile device or a computing device in order to generate that pin number. Google even allows you to use pre-made pin codes, so if you're ever caught in a foreign land where the authorities are about to knock down your door, you just need to swallow the paper containing those codes.
I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.
It doesn't matter. Unless there was a signed release from her niece, the woman doesn't actually own the picture. And at the very least, without informed consent from the niece for her picture to be used in a sting operation, the picture of the niece should have been pixelited, cut out, or not used at all.
the point is, you make it sound like celebrities were posting naked selfies on the internet and then got hacked. what happened was people took private pictures on their private phones, and assumed that because the phone was in their possession their private photos were safe. they didn't intend to make them accessible online. so stop trying to slutshame them.
I was criticizing Apple, not the celebrities. Admittedly, I do not have an iPhone. I only heard second hand accounts of what the iPhone was doing with the pictures.
If what you're saying is correct about the automatic backup, then my original statement about Apple stands.
the point is, the hack was due to a weakness in the security protocols, not a technical exploit of the servers or something. Also the hack was targeted at these people. look up 'spear fishing" when you have a chance.
Finally, you're willing to admit there was some weakness in the security protocols. That's far better than what I've heard the current CEO of Apple admit to.
Yes, I know what 'spear fishing' means in the context of security. And yes, the hack was targeted at these celebrities with iPhones. Had there been a similar security flaw with Android, I have no doubt that the hacker would have found some women celebrities to target on Android as well. It's not like he was targeting just one individual, he was targeting a class of individuals. And he could easily have found the same class of individuals on Android.
a couple corrections to your inaccuracies (intentional?):
You tell me. Are you intentionally ignoring the claims from this security researcher? Or was your ignorance unintentional?
* iphones back up automatically to icloud.
This point needs some explaining. Which parts get backed up? Plus, I'm not sure how it contradicts what I've said already. Are you implying that the default is not to continue to upload pictures to iCloud once you've uploaded at least one?
* the exploit in #celebgate #thefappening was taking advantage of weak passwords and/or reset questions. it's not that the infrastructure was insecure, it was user error in selecting weak passwords / reset questions.
That's a pretty lame defense. Can you point to an analysis or an explanation to back that up? I've heard the same denial by the CEO of Apple on Charlie Rose, but I didn't believe it. Our infrastructure is secure, is not enough of an explanation. Security is not some binary concept. Security is a very layered concept.
For example, weak passwords can be prevented at the input level (although obviously, not all weak passwords can be prevented, that is why you rely on multiple layers). Accounts can be notified when someone else is trying to get into your account with an incorrect password. Accounts can lock out untrusted ip addresses or untrusted applications when there is the suspicion of a targeted brute force attack on that account. Back up email addresses can be used for password recovery. Even reset questions can be crafted very carefully, and then only unlock an account through the cell phone number of the person in question (after all, all those users who were compromised were iPhone users, so Apple knew their phone numbers).
* in response apple has widely rolled out two-factor. some people will always set their passwords to be '12345', but at least with 2FA being very easily accessible then people have less and less of an excuse.
Didn't they already have two-factor authentication already? If not, the problem is worst than I had thought. Even Twitter, a company widely known for its lack of security, deployed two factor authentication last year (not that everybody is going to use it, but like you said, people will have less of an excuse at least).
Are we good now? kthx.
Security is about hardening the weakest links in the chain. Again, you have nothing to brag about if your phone has the best encryption with all the latest buzzwords that go with it, if all your naked pictures end up on an insecure cloud infrastructure as soon as you take them.
As a community we've always been skeptical of vaporware, especially when a lagging company announces vaporware in response to an innovator releasing a tangible product. Can we hold android to this standard?
A lagging company? The last I heard, it wasn't Android that automatically uploaded naked selfies to iCloud to only have them leak to the public. Also, please note that this encryption feature doesn't even address the original iOS problem. If your phone automatically uploads pictures by default to an insecure infrastructure, then it really doesn't matter if the copy you have on your phone is encrypted or not.
I work with several IT guys that are former military. They're good guys and work hard but not one of them is an actual geek... If it isn't something they're trained in they just don't do very well. Small sample size in (my office) but I don't see it.
This echos what I was told by IT military instructors.
The instructors are not allowed to choose their students. So the enlisted man who programs and built a mobile app in his spare time won't be allowed to follow a course on building mobile apps, but the officer who has no technical aptitude whatsoever has to be hand-held all the way through such a course because he will be the only one allowed to build such an app for the military in the first place.
This is not to say that all military men aren't geeks. Like I said, there are some. It's just that you have to take into account what they did at their jobs, and what they actually like to do during their spare time, to get the most complete picture.
... what was actually going on here. The republicans are against lots of government regulation. They just don't like it in general.
You can't just blame the republicans.
As soon as the lobbyist Tom Wheeler was made FCC chairman and his former cronies from Comcast and Verizon made attorneys for the FCC, the fight for 'Net Neutrality' under Obama was lost.
The people who keep sending comments for 'Net Neutrality' to the FCC are either ignorant of that fact, or they're just naive. These industry lobbyists currently in charge of the FCC are not going to suddenly change side. This is not the Supreme Court. They're not guaranteed that cushy job for life. And once they stop working for the FCC, they'll start lobbying again for the industry to get paid off for what they did while they were in charge of the FCC. This revolving door of excessive pay offs is extremely well documented.
The cynical in me says there isn't any need for high precision. As long as the facial recognition system can pick out foreign faces over native ones. All the system really needs to do is to give plausible justification for racial profiling.
Article 25 of the Constitution of the UAE provides for the equitable treatment of persons with regard to race, nationality, religious beliefs or social status. However...
[...]
Foreign laborers in Dubai often live in conditions described by Human Rights Watch as being "less than humane", and was the subject of the documentary, Slaves in Dubai.
[wikipedia entry]
At least, that's what the cynical in me says. I have no other basis for that theory. The other reason, which would be much more likely, is to justify a shiny new toy for a police force which has plenty of funding and to grab some headlines in a mainstream press which really doesn't know what's feasible and what's not.
Posting for a paywall article? Budget must be low at Slashdot to advertise for wallstreet journal.
You getting 20% of the signup costs?
Great article i bet, shame i'am too fucking tight to give you 20p to read it.
If you don't like ads, then you shouldn't read it anyhow. The ad for the paywall article is about making modular ad walls that when combined can make even bigger ad walls.
Think Shinjuku Tokyo Japan, but everywhere, in your home, at the groceries, at work, etc., brought to you by Google and as easy to assemble as legos.
If you can't let your customers send you money, then there's not much point in being in business. Also, whoever was responsible for setting up their payment system won't be laying claim to that fact in their advertising and testimonial material.
RedBox was a scam. It wasn't a technical issue that shut them down. It was most likely the number of charge-backs that did. I'm just surprised that it took this long.
They would frequently email you rental coupon codes that allowed you to rent a movie for free (which really, was the only reason I'd get a movie from them, their selection was mostly B movies that you had already seen, or that you wouldn't bother to rent in the first place, so when I had a free code, I'd force myself to to go through their selection to find something I'd like). Then three months later, after having returned your movie on time three months earlier, you'd get a ridiculous charge on your credit card for not having returned the disc to the right rental kiosk.
The main problem was that there were two kinds of red rental kiosks, sometimes they were both even in the same store. One was called RedBox. And I forget what the other was called. In theory, they were both owned by different companies, but in actual practice, they were both using red kiosks and very similar branding, they both accepted the same custom DVD plastic cases, and according to other customer complaints, both boxes were also operated and serviced by the same technicians.
And the large fine would work both ways, you'd get a DVD from RedBox and accidentally return it to the wrong one, or you'd get a DVD from the other one and accidentally returned to RedBox (either because you were an idiot, or because you told someone else in your household to return the movie to a red box), and the drastic outcome was identical. Even thought the company had your email address on your file, it didn't bother to notify you that it didn't receive the DVD on its end. It just charged you after three months. And even thought, this problem was happening very frequently and the boxes both shared the same company that serviced them, the companies were apparently not capable of telling each other about any extra DVD they had received by mistake.
Which is why I think this systematic failure on their end was really an intentional attempt at defrauding people. No doubt, the start up had a legitimate business model at the beginning, but once it couldn't compete on selection (even for the extra convenience and the very reasonable price of $1 a day), instead of opting for bankruptcy, it started scamming people in a systematic way.
Small companies often have barely enough to pay employees that are present. To be paying for employees on leave is something else, male or female.
Some European countries deal with maternity/paternity leave at the government level. This way, even if your start-up has three employees, and if one goes on leave, it's the government that pays the 80% of his/her salary. The same goes for child care. Child care is heavily subsidized at the government level.
Of course, this increases the tax-burden on everyone, but this makes maternity/paternity leave much more feasible for even small startups where a long maternity leave could make or break the company, and would therefore could lead to drastically different hiring decisions.
But these 716 women who had made it past all that shit and were working in the tech sector found that once you get there, it sucks to be in a job where you're treated poorly because you're a woman, or you feel isolated because everybody else is a guy.
Millions of men could say something similar about the sector. Not everybody is cut out to be in IT, or to be a developer. Also, the time commitment can be huge (unless you're one of the few lucky ones). It's also very difficult for men to maintain a normal relationship, let alone, raise a family, with the kind of performance they're expected to maintain at work.
That is why. Those 716 women are not alone. Countless men have called it quits in those types of jobs, and moved on to other jobs that are more administrative or managerial in nature.
From what I understand, Intel is working towards riding the Android train, and they supposedly have more engineers working on Android than even Google does. ...
That's not hard. HTC even has had more software engineers working on Android than Google does, for far longer than Intel has. Google seems to think that if it increases the number of developers working on the Android team, it could make things worse.
This is not to say that your main point is not valid. It is. Intel is indeed investing heavily on Android. And thank god that it has. The much faster x86 Intel emulator has actually been a life saver for many Android Developers.
This Attorney General Eric Holder sounds just like another pedophile, or another sexual predator in the making.
He's using the same exact argument school officials used for taking secret webcam pictures of teenagers in the privacy of their own beds. And he's using the same argument San Francisco cops used for accessing the full prescription drug records of any woman they were dating, or any woman they had any personal sexual interest in.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking away the sexual privacy, nor the medical privacy, of sexual offenders or drug offenders, but if that means doing away with the sexual privacy and the medical privacy, of every man, woman, and child, because law enforcement finds it just more convenient to place peeping holes into every possible bedroom, every private medicine cabinet, and every possible device out there, then things have gone really too far.
There must be some accountability about what specific information is being viewed by those law enforcement officials. There must be some discrimination about what is being viewed. There must be an audit trail. Right now, there isn't. And there must be disclosure made to the people being looked into, to make sure they're not just being stalked, or spied upon, just because a cop, or a government official has a crush on them.
I chose to respond by going out at night and spreading my garbage up and down the streets. Fuckers wanna play passive aggressive games? I can play them too.
I can see the passive part, but where is the aggressive part?
Did you also stop smiling, waving, and saying “Hey-Diddly-Ho! Mr. garbage men" every time they drove by?
Apple has locked it down? So what? How is that any different from the last several years where competitors have had NFC and payment support?
When the ISIS Association initially locked down NFC, it only locked down access to the NFC secure element. In other words, third party developers were still able to use NFC for other purposes, than making payment applications with it. In that sense, Apple is far more paranoid and repressive than ISIS itself.
As a user, I personally couldn't care less about the latest power struggle between big players. I just like to be able to read my Clipper card with it. And I just like to pair with my speakers/my headset, or my friends devices, without having to even think about it (or without being forced to buy NFC Bluetooth speakers at twice the price because they an exclusive deal with Apple).
Or as an alternative: If you track the location of cop's cell phones you can predict areas at higher risk for crimes, after they've been called in.
Can we go ahead and explain to Uber and Lyft that they need taxi licenses and to pay their share or gtfo.
Explain all you want. In some cities, taxi medallions are no longer being sold and the supply of taxis is being artificially limited.
Personally, I live in San Francisco and I'm sick and tired of not being able to catch a cab during peak hours. So I end up have to drive my car to work and pay exorbitant parking fees whenever I have to go somewhere after work that's not easily reachable via public transportation.
And no, I'm not black, in case you were wondering. Although, I suspect that increasing the supply of taxi-like services like Uber would solve some of that problem as well. If there is an oversupply of taxis or taxi-like services, then these taxi drivers are actually much less able to discriminate.
Why stay in an RV when you could stay on a couch?
and under our new fine print if the driver get's in accident you can get sued as well.
Putting the initial joke aside, here is the actual insurance policy from Uber.
There is actually nothing wrong with it, as far as I can tell.
Unlike yourself, Quickflix has obtained all necessary Australian rights to the content on its platform, faithfully meets all necessary security requirements, including geo-filtering imposed by the content rights holders, and...
Netflix has geo-filtering in place, hence the need for private VPNs. In fact, if the reverse was true and non-Australians watched Quickflix movies through VPNs, I very much doubt that Quickflix could do anything about it.
My guess is that Quickflix is just posturing to get better terms on content licensing. 200,000 is an awful big guess estimate. VPNs are not free (the free ones just aren't reliable). I doubt very much that 200,000 people would put down money for a VPN subscription, on top of a Netflix subscription, on top of broadband service. If people are getting VPN subscriptions, it's probably for porn, business, and/or free video streaming services like hulu.com or thedarewall.com