One of Snowden's complaints (and the chief reason, according to him, that he has not returned to the US to stand trial) is that he has been charged on two counts under the Espionage Act, which prevents him from defending himself in open court. Presumably you, too, would prefer that he was allowed to make a public interest defense?
My preference is to follow the letter of the law. If that includes charges under the Espionage Act, then so be it.
A pardon is the executive - the leader of the people - granting you leniency for what you did. However to be excused for your actions, one should first admit to them.
As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this, I'm not opposed to the idea of a pardon. However I don't believe a carte blanche pardon is appropriate, or sets good precedence.
What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary. Even if what Snowden did was ultimately a good thing, I believe there still needs to be repercussions for it - that he needs to take responsibility for his actions. A trial to firmly establish the facts of the case and whether he did anything against the law, even if it can only end in not-guilty or a presidential pardon, is something I think would be a reasonable compromise.
If that happens, that's why we have VP and a predetermined order of succession.
Sure, there's an order of succession in the system. But you never want to actually have to use it. It's like fire sprinklers: they're a great thing that stops a bigger problem, but using them incurs a ton of collateral damage as well. In this case having a president die induces a lot of political uncertainty both domestic and abroad, it causes productivity to drop as everyone stops to watch CNN and/or the funeral, and the markets drop as well. It's not a good outcome for anyone (except maybe the VP).
As you get old, you develop medical conditions. Both Trump and Clinton are older than the average main party candidate. Presidents aren't immune to aging- and *gasp* could die in office.
Which is why even before all of this political nonsense I've been mulling over whether both candidates are too old for the job. The presidency is notoriously stressful, and since the age of TV we've seen just how physically hard it is on the presidents. Poor Obama looks like he's aged 15-20 years in the span of 8. Now we want to put people who are old enough that they'll be in their late 70s if they serve a full 8 year term?
With age comes wisdom, which is essential to this job. But I can't help but feel the major parties erred on this one. Both candidates have the age (the wisdom is debatable), but we've gone far enough down one end of the spectrum that I fear we've ended up with candidates that won't live to see the end of their potential presidencies. Which invokes all of the problems above.
Congratulations, investors. Thanks to your shortsightedness, you've corralled Nintendo into making what will surely be a bad Mario platformer. This is how you kill the goose...
And on a less dramatic note, I really do feel bad for Miyamoto. Just from his body language at the Apple event, he didn't look like he wanted to be there.
and has abusive licensing fees. My company has been talking about adding this to future products, and they want more money for this than it costs us to add an HDMI port and our profit, combined.
Are you talking about the USB-IF or HDMI LLC levying licensing fees here? The way you describe it, it sounds like you're talking about fees for USB-C, which doesn't make a whole heap of sense as there are no per-unit fees for the USB standards. HDMI on the other hand does, and those aren't very well publicized. Are you saying that the HDMI org is charging extra for HDMI-over-USB-C?
The plaintiff should be required to download the entire file and to ensure that the checksum of said file matches the file offered via the plaintiff's service.
They did. That's the whole point of the "direct detection" statement. They connected to the peers in the swarm and were able to download valid (SHA1 verified) chunks of the file from the defendants.
Unfortunately it's the only two factor authentication system that's going to work for the public at large. It's a simple system that works with any and every cell phone on the market, with no need to (re)develop applications for multiple OSes, manage syncing those applications to a master server, and then handle user support issues when those applications break.
The problem with "proper" security is that it works against the user. Long passwords that you can't remember, SecurID tokens that you never have when you need them, and finicky fingerprint readers that are too easily fooled by fakes. And in the end, all of this just gets subverted by social engineering, calling the help desk and convincing the rube on the other end to reset the account password. Unbreakable security fails at being friendly when faced with the fallibility of users, and at the same time it's only as strong as the weakest human who has control over it.
The fact of the matter is that the only real threat to PSN users is going to be criminal gangs harvesting accounts en masse. A token two factor system, properly implemented, is going to be enough to stop that. It's security that's good enough. Otherwise you'll quickly discover first-hand how perfect can be the enemy of good.
Which is not to say I advocate poor security. But so far no one has come up with a better way to do it. It has to be universally compatible and it has to handle user failures gracefully, and there are very few ways to do that.
Unfortunately you're not going to get much better on cable, even with DOCSIS 3.1. Upstream requires valuable low-frequency spectrum, which there's only a limited amount of and there's contention with other services (cable boxes, VoIP, etc). Meanwhile it's a nosier shared environment, so you also can't use as high of a bitrate as you can on the downstream.
Fiber is clearly better in this respect. But it's the tradeoff of using the copper already in the ground as opposed to having to dig up streets to lay down new fiber.
And just to add to that, until their recent run of profitability, the last time the airlines as a whole were consistently profitable was in the 1990s, before the dot-com bubble popped. Between roughly 2001 and 2011, they cumulatively lost money (the one bright spot was 2006, but of course the Great Recession hit).
It wasn't until we exited the Great Recession, airlines started charging for food and bags, and airlines did more to increase the passenger load factor (percentage of seats that are filled) to historically crazy levels that they finally became profitable as they have been in the past few years. Until then, even in decently good times, the underlying costs were pulling them down. Too many pilots and attendants drawing too high of a salary, too many flights going out less than full (i.e. too much spare capacity), etc.
So you can imagine why airlines weren't in any rush to invest in high cost, risky IT upgrade projects. When you're trying to just stay in the black, any optional cost not part of the core business (flying) is a risk.
Heads up, FF 48 has removed the browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete setting. This setting was introduced in Firefox 43 to disable the annoying Unified Complete system introduced in that build. Unified Complete is what causes the first drop-down result to be "Visit/Search With [domain]" rather than the most relevant result, as was the default before Firefox 43.
Since the preference has been removed entirely, there is no current way to get this behavior back. It would need to be fixed by an extension.
Why is this considered a jailbreak (a good thing) and not lauded as a remote code execution vulnerability that it actually is. If one web page can execute code, that means another web page can execute different code, installing a backdoor to your network, etc.
Because no one uses the Vita browser. It's terrible, especially by modern smartphone standards. It's hard to seriously classify this as a threat when the odds of a Vita browser coming across a malicious site sits at just a hair above 0.0%
Thus is a move to make sure Open Source software developers and individuals cannot produce Kernel mode drivers.
No. This is a move to further prevent kernel mode malware, because it turns out trusting developers wasn't good enough. That it impacts OSS is collateral damage - and something that can be dealt with, at that - as while OSS is popular here on Slashdot, it's not much more than a blip in the wider Windows world.
The whole reason we're even going this route is that trusting developer signed drivers has proven inadequate. Microsoft started requiring developer signatures (cross-signed) in Windows 7. This significantly cut down on driver based malware, but it didn't eliminate it entirely. It just raised the barrier to entry. Instead malware authors would just eat the cost and buy a certificate, or the especially crafty/evil ones would steal another vendor's keys, as we saw with the Realtek case. Either way Microsoft has had enough of it. and hence Windows 10 requires that they sign off on all drivers so that no one can just ship a (obviously) malware-infected driver.
I don't mean to be snarky/belittling here, but if you think that Microsoft is doing this as a strike against OSS, then you haven't been paying attention to the wider world. OSS on Windows certainly exists, but OSS projects that require kernel mode drivers are exceedingly few and far between. Which is not to say that OSS isn't a threat to MS to some degree, but that threat is from Linux, not OSS projects that require a kernel mode driver running under Windows. MS's prime concern is further reducing the ability of malware to hang out in the kernel space, as once malware makes it there it becomes virtually impossible to identify, contain, and remove.
And yes, this definitely makes signing harder for everyone. By all indications that's intentional, as EV Certs make it harder to hide (you have to provide more information) and are harder to steal/fraudulently use. There are ways to work with that for OSS though, just as was the case with Windows 7, so we'll be okay. As Bruce likes to say, security is a process; it takes more than just the OS vendor to keep Windows machines secure. So this is our contribution to that process (whether we like it or not).
Yes its beyond the reach of most attackers to clone a chip card. Stolen card is still a problem though.
But the latter is not the problem that they even set out to solve. Fraud due to stolen cards is infinitesimal; most people don't lose their cards in a way they're easily found, and most people, when presented with a card, don't commit fraud with it. Not to say that it isn't annoying when you lose a card and someone does go on a spree, but it's always about the tradeoffs.
What chip-and-sig is designed to solve are the issues involving data breaches and duplicated cards. EMV means that retailers no longer have a vast database of all the information you need to produce a card, because part of the processing takes place on the card itself. Meanwhile good luck actually making a counterfeit EMV card, never mind getting the required information off of the original to duplicate it.
How has the way the Linux kernel is managed negatively affected proprietary graphics card drivers?
By not supporting a stable ABI and API for binary drivers. You can take a WinVista driver written in 2006 and still install it and use it today on a fully updated and supported OS. Linux doesn't offer any kind of binary compatibility remotely comparable.
Users appreciate minor OS updates not breaking their drivers. Hardware vendors appreciate not having to chase whatever direction the kernel devs are going to keep their drivers working.
Shouldn't drones be fighting the fire? Why send humans up there?
Because no one is going to let a DC-10 loaded down with water fly around on its own. Very large drones don't make sense for the task, as it introduces another point of failure and gains almost nothing in return.
Perhaps I've just missed this in the reports, but is there any analysis on how this is impacted by sandboxing?
Apple tends to keep things pretty locked down and isolated, and while Stagefright was a Go Directly to Root kind of exploit, I'm curious whether this has the same risk. Can a bad TIFF file delivered via iMessage actually break out of iMessage? "Ultimately, an attack could give a hacker access to portions of a computerâ(TM)s memory" is not very descriptive here.
Side note: why the heck is anyone still supporting TIFF as a built-in image format. The TIFF standard is so complex that it has been the source of an innumerable number of security exploits over the years. It's a very risky format to support for exactly this reason.
One thing that TFS doesn't make clear here is that this situation only occurs if you sign up for Pokemon Go with a Google account.
The game supports two different account types, either a Pokemon Trainer Club account through pokemon.com, or a Google account. Because the game is incredibly, absurdly popular right now, Nintendo is throttling Pokemon Trainer Club account creation to prevent their servers from becoming molten silicon. Which is why so many people are signing up with their Google account.
It's signing up via a Google account that causes PoGo/Nintendo to have full access to said account. Which means that if you have already signed up via the Pokemon Trainer Club, or will do so in the future, you'll be fine. It's only users signing up via the Google account system that are getting their Google accounts linked in this fashion. So the straightforward solution is to only sign up for the game with a Pokemon Trainer Club account. Which admittedly isn't super helpful due to the aforementioned throttle on Pokemon Trainer Club account creation, but there is at least a workaround.
Otherwise the iOS-centric aspect of this is a bit unusual. Obviously iOS isn't giving PoGo access to your Google account, rather it seems to be a difference in how the two apps work. It appears that the Android version of the app doesn't try to request full permissions, only the iOS version does. Why? That's a good question...
The usual jokes aside, this is going to be a part of our future. VR is going to change human sexual interaction just like ubiquitous communication devices (phones) changed social interaction. Combined with task-optimized haptics to provide the tactile feedback, and given the importance of sex (or rather, orgasm) in the human experience, and it can't not change things.
Whether it changes things for the better or the worse remains to be seen though. Japan already has a birth rate problem and this isn't going to help. Which isn't to say that the tech shouldn't exist, only that one could very easily see it as exacerbating the problem. It may very well force Japanese society (and other societies as well) to finally address the issue and enact structural change to make rearing children more desirable.
The bigger question is whether this can be meaningfully used as a tool to improve human interaction. In both Japanese and Western societies, so much emphasis is put on your first time. Maybe this improves that, reducing the massive social threshold that comes with sex and at the same time producing a generation of young adults who are more confident with sex, what they want from it, and what they expect from each other?
No matter how it ends up, it'll be interesting to see how it evolves.
Meanwhile people with months-old Rift pre-orders are still waiting
For what it's worth, Oculus is finally getting caught up. Orders as recently as last month have shipped in the US. It looks like they should be fully caught up in another month.
I'm strongly in favor of overall greater access to birth control. But I have to say that when it comes to starting any kind of hormonal birth control, I'm uneasy about the idea of doing so without the supervision of a doctor or other medical professional.
In my case I had to go through three different types of pills before I found a pill that worked well for me. The first two left me, well, hormonal and while it wasn't terrible, it also wasn't a pleasant experience. Especially compared to how much better things were once I finally found a pill that worked. There are a number of different pills on the market for a reason; not everyone responds to a given formulation the same way. And this is where the doctor was a great help, as she was able to tell me what was and wasn't normal, use my experiences to suggest other options. I suppose from a technical perspective any pill will do - they all seem to pause fertility - but the side effects can be a real pain.
This is why I'm uneasy about anyone starting a new birth control regimen without supervision. Certainly once you're established and happy, you should be able to get new packs as you please (including ordering extra for trips and such). And this is definitely something that needs to be fixed as it's harder than it should be. But starting without a physician seems like a poor idea to me. I feel like it's doing a disservice to others who will be lead to think the processes is easier than it actually is.
Can Steam even do that? I know that they can revoke games purchased within the Steam ecosystem, but I've never heard anything about revoking a copy that comes via a key.
Since Valve isn't involved with how that key is sold, I could certainly see them not allowing vendors to revoke games. The last thing Valve wants is customers bitching to them about losing access to a game, and of course Valve can't do a thing since they aren't the original seller and can't refund the purchase.
For what it's worth, the reports say that the car was a recent model Jeep Cherokee. Recent Chryslers vehicles have an incredibly stupid automatic shifter.
It's entirely a drive-by-wire shifter that acts more like a joystick, and what you do is that you essentially dial in the gear you want, at which point it always goes back to its default position. So people are having a heck of a time telling when it's in Park, because if they didn't dial it correctly, they'll get Neural instead.
Mr. Yelchin may very well have been the latest person to discover this the unfortunate way; there were already 30 injury reports back in February.
I know the editors are just shortening the title from TFA, but saying "this Apple II game" rather than the name of the game borders on clickbait. If you're going to rewrite the title (and you should, that's what a good editor does), then you may as well do it right and make it a properly descriptive title.
e.g. "Easter Egg Found After 33 Years in Apple II Game 'Gumball'" which is more descriptive and more space efficient, coming in at 3 characters shorter than the current Slashdot title.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile vi users have to post multiple times to make up for their small user base. Otherwise no one would remember that poor vi exists.
My preference is to follow the letter of the law. If that includes charges under the Espionage Act, then so be it.
A pardon is the executive - the leader of the people - granting you leniency for what you did. However to be excused for your actions, one should first admit to them.
As someone who is displeased with how Snowden went about this, I'm not opposed to the idea of a pardon. However I don't believe a carte blanche pardon is appropriate, or sets good precedence.
What I'd like to see is Snowden return to the US of his own volition to stand trial. And then, once the trial is complete, a pardon can be issued if necessary. Even if what Snowden did was ultimately a good thing, I believe there still needs to be repercussions for it - that he needs to take responsibility for his actions. A trial to firmly establish the facts of the case and whether he did anything against the law, even if it can only end in not-guilty or a presidential pardon, is something I think would be a reasonable compromise.
Sure, there's an order of succession in the system. But you never want to actually have to use it. It's like fire sprinklers: they're a great thing that stops a bigger problem, but using them incurs a ton of collateral damage as well. In this case having a president die induces a lot of political uncertainty both domestic and abroad, it causes productivity to drop as everyone stops to watch CNN and/or the funeral, and the markets drop as well. It's not a good outcome for anyone (except maybe the VP).
Which is why even before all of this political nonsense I've been mulling over whether both candidates are too old for the job. The presidency is notoriously stressful, and since the age of TV we've seen just how physically hard it is on the presidents. Poor Obama looks like he's aged 15-20 years in the span of 8. Now we want to put people who are old enough that they'll be in their late 70s if they serve a full 8 year term?
With age comes wisdom, which is essential to this job. But I can't help but feel the major parties erred on this one. Both candidates have the age (the wisdom is debatable), but we've gone far enough down one end of the spectrum that I fear we've ended up with candidates that won't live to see the end of their potential presidencies. Which invokes all of the problems above.
Congratulations, investors. Thanks to your shortsightedness, you've corralled Nintendo into making what will surely be a bad Mario platformer. This is how you kill the goose...
And on a less dramatic note, I really do feel bad for Miyamoto. Just from his body language at the Apple event, he didn't look like he wanted to be there.
Are you talking about the USB-IF or HDMI LLC levying licensing fees here? The way you describe it, it sounds like you're talking about fees for USB-C, which doesn't make a whole heap of sense as there are no per-unit fees for the USB standards. HDMI on the other hand does, and those aren't very well publicized. Are you saying that the HDMI org is charging extra for HDMI-over-USB-C?
They did. That's the whole point of the "direct detection" statement. They connected to the peers in the swarm and were able to download valid (SHA1 verified) chunks of the file from the defendants.
Unfortunately it's the only two factor authentication system that's going to work for the public at large. It's a simple system that works with any and every cell phone on the market, with no need to (re)develop applications for multiple OSes, manage syncing those applications to a master server, and then handle user support issues when those applications break.
The problem with "proper" security is that it works against the user. Long passwords that you can't remember, SecurID tokens that you never have when you need them, and finicky fingerprint readers that are too easily fooled by fakes. And in the end, all of this just gets subverted by social engineering, calling the help desk and convincing the rube on the other end to reset the account password. Unbreakable security fails at being friendly when faced with the fallibility of users, and at the same time it's only as strong as the weakest human who has control over it.
The fact of the matter is that the only real threat to PSN users is going to be criminal gangs harvesting accounts en masse. A token two factor system, properly implemented, is going to be enough to stop that. It's security that's good enough. Otherwise you'll quickly discover first-hand how perfect can be the enemy of good.
Which is not to say I advocate poor security. But so far no one has come up with a better way to do it. It has to be universally compatible and it has to handle user failures gracefully, and there are very few ways to do that.
Unfortunately you're not going to get much better on cable, even with DOCSIS 3.1. Upstream requires valuable low-frequency spectrum, which there's only a limited amount of and there's contention with other services (cable boxes, VoIP, etc). Meanwhile it's a nosier shared environment, so you also can't use as high of a bitrate as you can on the downstream.
Fiber is clearly better in this respect. But it's the tradeoff of using the copper already in the ground as opposed to having to dig up streets to lay down new fiber.
The parent is spot on.
And just to add to that, until their recent run of profitability, the last time the airlines as a whole were consistently profitable was in the 1990s, before the dot-com bubble popped. Between roughly 2001 and 2011, they cumulatively lost money (the one bright spot was 2006, but of course the Great Recession hit).
http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_industry.html (apologies for the tiny image, but historical data more than 5 years out is typically paywalled).
It wasn't until we exited the Great Recession, airlines started charging for food and bags, and airlines did more to increase the passenger load factor (percentage of seats that are filled) to historically crazy levels that they finally became profitable as they have been in the past few years. Until then, even in decently good times, the underlying costs were pulling them down. Too many pilots and attendants drawing too high of a salary, too many flights going out less than full (i.e. too much spare capacity), etc.
So you can imagine why airlines weren't in any rush to invest in high cost, risky IT upgrade projects. When you're trying to just stay in the black, any optional cost not part of the core business (flying) is a risk.
Heads up, FF 48 has removed the browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete setting. This setting was introduced in Firefox 43 to disable the annoying Unified Complete system introduced in that build. Unified Complete is what causes the first drop-down result to be "Visit/Search With [domain]" rather than the most relevant result, as was the default before Firefox 43.
Since the preference has been removed entirely, there is no current way to get this behavior back. It would need to be fixed by an extension.
Because no one uses the Vita browser. It's terrible, especially by modern smartphone standards. It's hard to seriously classify this as a threat when the odds of a Vita browser coming across a malicious site sits at just a hair above 0.0%
No. This is a move to further prevent kernel mode malware, because it turns out trusting developers wasn't good enough. That it impacts OSS is collateral damage - and something that can be dealt with, at that - as while OSS is popular here on Slashdot, it's not much more than a blip in the wider Windows world.
The whole reason we're even going this route is that trusting developer signed drivers has proven inadequate. Microsoft started requiring developer signatures (cross-signed) in Windows 7. This significantly cut down on driver based malware, but it didn't eliminate it entirely. It just raised the barrier to entry. Instead malware authors would just eat the cost and buy a certificate, or the especially crafty/evil ones would steal another vendor's keys, as we saw with the Realtek case. Either way Microsoft has had enough of it. and hence Windows 10 requires that they sign off on all drivers so that no one can just ship a (obviously) malware-infected driver.
I don't mean to be snarky/belittling here, but if you think that Microsoft is doing this as a strike against OSS, then you haven't been paying attention to the wider world. OSS on Windows certainly exists, but OSS projects that require kernel mode drivers are exceedingly few and far between. Which is not to say that OSS isn't a threat to MS to some degree, but that threat is from Linux, not OSS projects that require a kernel mode driver running under Windows. MS's prime concern is further reducing the ability of malware to hang out in the kernel space, as once malware makes it there it becomes virtually impossible to identify, contain, and remove.
And yes, this definitely makes signing harder for everyone. By all indications that's intentional, as EV Certs make it harder to hide (you have to provide more information) and are harder to steal/fraudulently use. There are ways to work with that for OSS though, just as was the case with Windows 7, so we'll be okay. As Bruce likes to say, security is a process; it takes more than just the OS vendor to keep Windows machines secure. So this is our contribution to that process (whether we like it or not).
But the latter is not the problem that they even set out to solve. Fraud due to stolen cards is infinitesimal; most people don't lose their cards in a way they're easily found, and most people, when presented with a card, don't commit fraud with it. Not to say that it isn't annoying when you lose a card and someone does go on a spree, but it's always about the tradeoffs.
What chip-and-sig is designed to solve are the issues involving data breaches and duplicated cards. EMV means that retailers no longer have a vast database of all the information you need to produce a card, because part of the processing takes place on the card itself. Meanwhile good luck actually making a counterfeit EMV card, never mind getting the required information off of the original to duplicate it.
By not supporting a stable ABI and API for binary drivers. You can take a WinVista driver written in 2006 and still install it and use it today on a fully updated and supported OS. Linux doesn't offer any kind of binary compatibility remotely comparable.
Users appreciate minor OS updates not breaking their drivers. Hardware vendors appreciate not having to chase whatever direction the kernel devs are going to keep their drivers working.
Because no one is going to let a DC-10 loaded down with water fly around on its own. Very large drones don't make sense for the task, as it introduces another point of failure and gains almost nothing in return.
Perhaps I've just missed this in the reports, but is there any analysis on how this is impacted by sandboxing?
Apple tends to keep things pretty locked down and isolated, and while Stagefright was a Go Directly to Root kind of exploit, I'm curious whether this has the same risk. Can a bad TIFF file delivered via iMessage actually break out of iMessage? "Ultimately, an attack could give a hacker access to portions of a computerâ(TM)s memory" is not very descriptive here.
Side note: why the heck is anyone still supporting TIFF as a built-in image format. The TIFF standard is so complex that it has been the source of an innumerable number of security exploits over the years. It's a very risky format to support for exactly this reason.
One thing that TFS doesn't make clear here is that this situation only occurs if you sign up for Pokemon Go with a Google account.
The game supports two different account types, either a Pokemon Trainer Club account through pokemon.com, or a Google account. Because the game is incredibly, absurdly popular right now, Nintendo is throttling Pokemon Trainer Club account creation to prevent their servers from becoming molten silicon. Which is why so many people are signing up with their Google account.
It's signing up via a Google account that causes PoGo/Nintendo to have full access to said account. Which means that if you have already signed up via the Pokemon Trainer Club, or will do so in the future, you'll be fine. It's only users signing up via the Google account system that are getting their Google accounts linked in this fashion. So the straightforward solution is to only sign up for the game with a Pokemon Trainer Club account. Which admittedly isn't super helpful due to the aforementioned throttle on Pokemon Trainer Club account creation, but there is at least a workaround.
Otherwise the iOS-centric aspect of this is a bit unusual. Obviously iOS isn't giving PoGo access to your Google account, rather it seems to be a difference in how the two apps work. It appears that the Android version of the app doesn't try to request full permissions, only the iOS version does. Why? That's a good question...
The usual jokes aside, this is going to be a part of our future. VR is going to change human sexual interaction just like ubiquitous communication devices (phones) changed social interaction. Combined with task-optimized haptics to provide the tactile feedback, and given the importance of sex (or rather, orgasm) in the human experience, and it can't not change things.
Whether it changes things for the better or the worse remains to be seen though. Japan already has a birth rate problem and this isn't going to help. Which isn't to say that the tech shouldn't exist, only that one could very easily see it as exacerbating the problem. It may very well force Japanese society (and other societies as well) to finally address the issue and enact structural change to make rearing children more desirable.
The bigger question is whether this can be meaningfully used as a tool to improve human interaction. In both Japanese and Western societies, so much emphasis is put on your first time. Maybe this improves that, reducing the massive social threshold that comes with sex and at the same time producing a generation of young adults who are more confident with sex, what they want from it, and what they expect from each other?
No matter how it ends up, it'll be interesting to see how it evolves.
From the beginning, please.
For what it's worth, Oculus is finally getting caught up. Orders as recently as last month have shipped in the US. It looks like they should be fully caught up in another month.
I'm strongly in favor of overall greater access to birth control. But I have to say that when it comes to starting any kind of hormonal birth control, I'm uneasy about the idea of doing so without the supervision of a doctor or other medical professional.
In my case I had to go through three different types of pills before I found a pill that worked well for me. The first two left me, well, hormonal and while it wasn't terrible, it also wasn't a pleasant experience. Especially compared to how much better things were once I finally found a pill that worked. There are a number of different pills on the market for a reason; not everyone responds to a given formulation the same way. And this is where the doctor was a great help, as she was able to tell me what was and wasn't normal, use my experiences to suggest other options. I suppose from a technical perspective any pill will do - they all seem to pause fertility - but the side effects can be a real pain.
This is why I'm uneasy about anyone starting a new birth control regimen without supervision. Certainly once you're established and happy, you should be able to get new packs as you please (including ordering extra for trips and such). And this is definitely something that needs to be fixed as it's harder than it should be. But starting without a physician seems like a poor idea to me. I feel like it's doing a disservice to others who will be lead to think the processes is easier than it actually is.
Can Steam even do that? I know that they can revoke games purchased within the Steam ecosystem, but I've never heard anything about revoking a copy that comes via a key.
Since Valve isn't involved with how that key is sold, I could certainly see them not allowing vendors to revoke games. The last thing Valve wants is customers bitching to them about losing access to a game, and of course Valve can't do a thing since they aren't the original seller and can't refund the purchase.
For what it's worth, the reports say that the car was a recent model Jeep Cherokee. Recent Chryslers vehicles have an incredibly stupid automatic shifter.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a28121/nhtsa-investigates-jeep-dodge-chrysler-shifters/
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/02/09/2033249/jeepchryslers-new-gearshift-appears-to-be-causing-accidents
It's entirely a drive-by-wire shifter that acts more like a joystick, and what you do is that you essentially dial in the gear you want, at which point it always goes back to its default position. So people are having a heck of a time telling when it's in Park, because if they didn't dial it correctly, they'll get Neural instead.
Mr. Yelchin may very well have been the latest person to discover this the unfortunate way; there were already 30 injury reports back in February.
I know the editors are just shortening the title from TFA, but saying "this Apple II game" rather than the name of the game borders on clickbait. If you're going to rewrite the title (and you should, that's what a good editor does), then you may as well do it right and make it a properly descriptive title.
e.g. "Easter Egg Found After 33 Years in Apple II Game 'Gumball'" which is more descriptive and more space efficient, coming in at 3 characters shorter than the current Slashdot title.