The odds of success are even worse for student-athletes aiming for a career in professional sports. Yet the suicide rate among student athletes is lower than for other college students. Perhaps those jocks aren't as dumb as the nerds assumed them to be? None of my athlete friends from high school made it into professional sports, but all of them seem to have found successful and fulfilling careers in other fields.
I suspect what's going on is most people's mistaken approach to sunk costs. Post-grads have so much invested in their education in their chosen field that they find it difficult to give it all up in search of a job in other fields. Athletes knew from the beginning the odds were against them, so have always had the idea in the back of their minds that they might end up working in another field. So when their desired career path turns into misery, post-grads persist on their chosen self-destructive path, while athletes see the writing on the wall and drop back to one of their secondary career choices.
So damage could be routine but the bit of DNA damage is the bit that defines the shape of you nose
That is the definition of ionizing radiation. RF radiation can't selectively knock apart the atoms in molecules until it reach a certain quantum energy level. Below that level, all the radiation does (if absorbed) is heat up the molecules (makes the atoms vibrate faster). Radiation which can knock apart atoms is called ionizing radiation. Radiation which cannot is called non-ionizing.
The boundary between these two is right around ultraviolent light. So contrary to what GP stated, UV light is harmful because it is ionizing. A sunburn is literally genetic damage to your skin cells' DNA which caused them to die.
Radio waves lie far beneath this ionizing threshold. So there is no know mechanism by which radio waves could cause genetic damage other than thermal. And if you dumped enough thermal radio energy into rats to cause genetic damage, they'd be cooked and genetic damage would be the least of their worries.
If the AI in its buggy state is still safer than human drivers, then it makes more sense to roll it out in its buggy state rather than wait until it's been debugged. As critical as I am of Tesla naming the feature "autopilot", it does seem to lower accident rates on average. Pointing to specific incidents of failures when the average failure rate has actually gone down, is nothing but cherry picking data contrary to the average to support the conclusion you want.
URL shorteners do have at least one valid use: if you're short on space into which a URL can be inserted, either because of some imposed limit, or because of etiquette of the medium,
Another reason is if you deliberately want the URL to be short-lived. e.g. You want to post a link to a public form like slashdot, but you don't want it around forever in slashdot's archives. It's easier to use a URL shortening service which allows you to delete the shortened URL at a later date, than it is to change the URL on your website.
This actually highlights the problem with our legal system more than it does what caused the collapse. Lawyers have filed a lawsuit (i.e. are certain who is blame) while the investigation has barely started and is still collecting evidence, and is probably a year away from reaching a conclusion.
If you want to argue that the lawyers aren't certain, they just want be first to get their speculative lawsuit in, then that's yet another problem with our legal system. That the penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit is so lacking that lawyers can file speculative lawsuits with impunity without a shred of evidence to back up their claim, gambling that such evidence might turn up in the future. Thereby forcing countless innocent defendants to waste money preparing a defense against lawsuits which never should have been filed in the first place.
Night owls don't stay up late and wake up late because they like to party and are lazy to wake up in the morning. Researchers have found that not everyone's biological clock runs at exactly 24 hours. Those whose clock runs slower (say 25 hours) are night owls - they tend to still be alert after the earth's rotation says they should've gone to sleep, and likewise tend to wake up later because their biological clock put them to sleep later. Those whose clock runs faster (say 23 hours) are morning larks - they tend to wake up earlier because their biological clock put them to sleep more quickly, and likewise they tend to fall asleep earlier in the night.
BTW, studies have shown people's average biological clock (when deprived of reference to day/night cycles) is 24.2 hours to 25 hours. So it's actually the night owls who are normal, and the morning larks who are abnormal.
The concept is much older than Star Trek. The earliest fictional reference I know of is a Ray Bradbury short story which is apparently too short to merit its own wiki entry. It's about a spacecraft diving close to the sun to scoop up some of its material (albeit for profit, not research).
The warning requirement is due to Proposition 65, a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986 (I was too young to vote then, but did my best to try to warn people how stupid it was going to be if it passed). The judge's hands here are mostly tied. According to the proposition, if there are studies which show a material can cause cancer (not just in people but in laboratory animals), then the warning is required. I've often joked that it should be required above every exit door since sunlight is known to cause cancer.
The warning is pretty much useless now - every store and nearly every product has it so it carries zero information value. The only function it now serves is to enrich a small group of lawyers who go around filing lawsuits against small businesses (mostly owned by new immigrants who have no idea such a silly law could exist) who failed to buy a $5 warning placard to post somewhere in their business. They usually manage to wrestle $2k to $10k from the small business to settle the lawsuit.
I'm the last person to want to defend Facebook - I don't even have FB account because I disagree with how invasive their data mining is. But if you're going to criticize FB for the negative things that come about from the increased connectivity their site enables, you also have to give them credit for the positive things that come about from the same connectivity. Getting in touch with long-lost friends, getting out news of major life events without having to resort to the telephone grapevine, easier dissemination of information about good/fun places to visit and better ways to do things based on the feedback of others you know. If you evaluate it that way, billions of people have voted by using FB that, based on a cursory evaluation of the benefits versus drawbacks (i.e. possibly unaware of the privacy implications), FB is for them on average a positive influence on their lives.
Criticizing FB solely on the basis of the bad things their social network can bring about is like criticizing vaccines solely on the basis of the few cases where they wind up killing people who are inoculated. You can't do that - you have to add up both the good and the bad. The most you can do with just the bad is criticize them for not taking enough steps to try to mitigate how their service can be used to promulgate the bad.
Regulate the industry (net neutrality) and/or create publicly-funded competition (public broadband) which keeps ISP's behavior in check.
Deregulate the industry - prohibit the government-granted monopolies which leave most people with a "choice" of only a single cable Internet and single DSL provider. Either require there be at least two cable Internet providers in an area. Or award a monopoly cable infrastructure maintenance contract, but regulate that company's rates and prohibit it from offering service over the wires it maintains. Instead, other companies act as ISPs providing service over those wires, with all paying the same rates to send data over those wires so that they're competing against each other strictly on service.
The ACLU has (perhaps not surprisingly) chosen to promote the former, which leaves the public on the hook for paying for it all. With the latter, the private sector pays for it while the public reaps the benefit. It's important to understand that the major cable internet companies aren't natural monopolies like Microsoft. They were given a monopoly by local governments who got into the regulation game to keep telephone poles from becoming too cluttered with wires, but somehow it morphed into a scheme where in exchange for a monopoly the local government got kickbacks or other guarantees from the sole ISP. This is why net neutrality isn't as big an issue in other parts of the world - most non-Americans have a choice of multiple ISPs, and can simply switch to a different ISP if theirs does anything stupid like try to throttle Netflix. The problems net neutrality tries to solve are only possible because of these government-granted monopolies.
The issue is that porn is one of those businesses where the producers will seek out and try new methods of distribution long before the mainstream does. Essentially Bezos used erotic novel authors to help jumpstart amazon.com (Amazon began as an online bookstore). Now that it's branched out and grown big enough that Bezoes doesn't feel he needs them anymore, he's burying them. It is literally climbing on the backs of other people to haul yourself up into a dominant position, then discarding them. Decent people don't do that. They acknowledge those who helped them rise up to success, and even give them a helping hand in the future (I scratch your back, you scratch mine). I'd been hoping Bezos was better than this, but it's sounding like he's just another Gates, Jobs, or Ellison (take as much as you can, and discard the person once they lose their usefulness).
This is all so simple to fix without taking the drastic step Amazon seems to have taken (based on the summary - TFA won't load in my browser due to some script it's trying to run). You flag all products which could be considered adult. Then you add a "hide adult content" setting in the account settings and set it to On by default, and let the user decide whether to leave it on or turn it off. The physical analogy is a room in the back of the video rental store where you put all the adult videos, and customers can decide for themselves whether or not to go into that room.
This seems like a poor business for using contractors. Outsourced contractors usually works best if they're the sole contractor, or (for multiple contractors) when the customer needs a one-off product or service. If someone needs a database interface rewritten and the data ported over, or you need a broken pipe under the sink fixed, a contractor is fine.
Contractors usually don't work well for repeated and word-of-mouth businesses like housekeeping. Here, consistency becomes an important characteristic. And you can't have consistency if the housekeeper that comes to your house each week is a different person using different cleaning products and different tools, who emphasizes cleaning different things. And word-of-mouth advertising doesn't work if the quality of service you get will be completely different from the quality of service the person who gave you the recommendation got. You need the control that hiring people as employees gives you, so you can create the consistency that your customers expect.
What's needed is a remote desktop server for Android and iOS, which will allow you to display your phone or tablet's screen on your laptop. Then you can do your personal browsing on your phone or tablet, while using your work laptop's much bigger screen and keyboard and more precise mouse/trackpad.
What would help is if the automatic URL link insertion button in the editing tools on many forums were programmed to strip out unnecessary referral and tracking fluff appended to the end of the URL for common websites. e.g.
Latest estimate is that 54% of the world's population lives in cities. That's over 4 billion people. So $3 billion spent on surveillance works out to less than 75 cents per person.
Of course most of that spending is skewed towards developed countries. But even there, the OECD accounts for about 18% of the world's population, or 1.37 billion. 68% of them live in cities, or 930 million. So $3 billion represents about $3.20 per OECD citizen, or 0.017% of the average OECD government spending of $18,496 per citizen.
History is full of martyrs who have chosen to die for things they believed in, rather than live without fighting them. We remember them because of their steadfast dedication to their cause despite the horrible choices it left them. Would you know who Nelson Mandela was if he'd simply fled South Africa instead of stayed to fight against apartheid, even though that choice fated him to spend 25 years in prison?
There's actually a tie-in with the immigration debate here. We are so eager to grant amnesty to political refugees fleeing their country because it seems the humane thing to do. But doing so prolongs the very political conditions those people are fleeing, by siphoning off the population willing to fight the oppressive regime, and thus condemning millions more to continue to suffer under that regime. Political change comes about from people willing to stay, fight, and if necessary die for their cause. Not from people who merely try to flee bad conditions. When Castro emptied his prisons and the U.S. willingly took them as refugees, it relieved him of having to pay to house and feed them, and of the political backlash he would have suffered had he merely executed them. He picked a course of action which allowed him to most easily prolong his totalitarian regime at the least cost - allow dissidents to flee the country thus reducing opposition to him within the country, and eliminating the international condemnation against keeping them imprisoned or executing them.
Assange needs to decide if the political weight his name carries helps his cause more by staying in the gilded cage, or by making the harder choice and facing prison in Britain. In that respect he has a real political choice here. Whining that neither choice is a good one from the standpoint of personal comfort won't help his cause.
Third possibility: out of a billion or so ad impressions (say 1 million slashdot readers who use Facebook multiplied by a thousand ad impressions per reader over the years), there are a few random ads which just by coincidence happened to match a recent conversation. And when this topic came up, those handful of users which experienced this coincidence self-selected themselves and posted their experience.
In the past, people attributed this sort of thing to psychic or paranormal ability. More recently, people have become familiar with it as cherry picking data, like a brokerage recommending buying several thousand stocks during the year, but in their ads purporting to show how good their selections are, they present the performance of only their top five picks. To properly gauge if Facebook is listening to your conversations via this methodology, you also need to collect data on when you had a conversation and Facebook didn't deliver an ad relevant to that conversation. And compare how many times it happened to how many times it didn't.
Because the phone did not belong to the terrorist. It belonged the San Bernardino County government. It was assigned to the terrorist for work use (i.e. he didn't own nor pay for it, and he was only supposed to use it for tasks which the owner could audit anyway). On top of that, the guy was dead, and legally thus far your human rights evaporate upon death.
Apple spun it as a privacy issue, as if the government were trying to get into your personal phone, and the press ate it up. That wasn't the case here at all. The closest personal analogy would be if you bought an iPhone for your kid with the clear understanding that it was only on loan to him, and he ended up being killed while committing a crime which made national headlines, and the police wanted to see if the contents of the phone you bought him might help their investigation, but you didn't know your kid's password. The precedent that was set wasn't that Apple wouldn't help the police break into your phone. The precedent that was set was that Apple wouldn't help you break into your own phone.
A walled garden is designed to keep you in. In a walled garden, the user has no choice - they cannot leave. Prohibiting access to other app stores makes for a walled garden. So does prohibiting certain apps which compete with yours.
This move is designed to keep people using non-approved Android installations out. You still have the option of choosing if you want to be on the inside or outside. In that respect it's fence with a gate in it, not a wall. And FWIW the common Google Apps (Gmail, Maps, Calendar, Docs, etc.) still work fine in a browser. So the fence has a lot of holes in it.
The crucial part will be if they include the Play Store in the list of apps which won't work. It's by far the biggest store in the Android marketplace. Amazon's is a distant second. And a lot of the apps in both the Play and Amazon stores aren't updated as frequently in Amazon's store.
Comment was modded funny. But several foreign students I met in college and grad school racked up thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in credit card and loan debt, then simply left the country when they graduated. They never planned to stay in the U.S. or visit again after graduating, and never intended to pay these back.
In Android you can just create a second user without a password and login to it. It'll have access to your installed apps (free ones and ones which are authorized for that account), but not your data (unless rooted and you have a file browser with root privileges). Unless you actually check for user accounts, it'll look just like a plain single-account unlocked phone.
What people need to understand is that the Internet brought with it the capability of committing a crime in one legal jurisdiction, while sitting in another legal jurisdiction. In this case, committing a crime in one country while sitting in another. One of the basic assumptions in nearly all our laws is that the crime and the perpetrator are/were in the same legal jurisdiction at the time the crime was committed. So they're not set up to handle these new Internet crimes.
Extradition treaties were created more for the case of a perpetrator of a crime in one country fleeing to another country. In those cases, it's clear the suspect committed a crime at the time, but up to the country he fled to to decide if it's something he should be extradited for. In Internet crimes, the person in one country may have been acting completely legally where he was residing, while his actions in a remote location were a crime at that location. The closest non-Internet analogy would be if someone in one country shot and killed someone in another country, when the shooting would've been justifiable in country but not the other.
When there's a mismatch between the two country's laws on whether the act was a crime, neither extreme solution works. If you do take one extreme and decide that the laws of the country of residence should always apply, then every country will simply make it not a crime to hack computers in other countries. And the Internet will break as everyone sets up filters to block all IP addresses outside their country except for certain whitelisted IPs. If you take the other extreme that the laws of the country where it was a crime should apply, then you enable a mechanism whereby countries with extremely restrictive laws (e.g. China) can reach out into other countries and imprison people who are acting legally there.
It'll take years, if not decades for our laws to grapple with and come up with some reasonable-sounding solution. I've been thinking of it on and off for years, and still haven't come up with anything which seems reasonable.
Google has been ahead of Apple on this except for control over specific permissions. When installing an app on Android, it showed you a list of which permissions the app wanted. If you didn't like how much stuff the app wanted access to, you could choose to cancel the app's install before it ever began. Apple didn't add this capability until 2012.
2012 (iOS 6) was also when Apple added the ability to decline giving an app a specific permission. So you could install an app but deny it a certain permission that it wanted. Google had that feature in beta since 2013, but didn't finalize it until Marshmallow (2015). (Marshmallow revamped how the OS and apps interacted, making it more difficult for apps to bypass OS-imposed restrictions like this.)
Neither will let you deny an app permission to access the Internet (using up your cellular data quota). I'm guessing this is to protect app makers' ad revenue streams. You have to root your phone to do that, which is what I've done on my Android phones since 2012 with a firewall app. Newly installed apps have their network access blocked by default, until I enable it. I see firewall apps in Google's store which claim to work without root, but I've never tried them since I've always been rooted.
Another issue has been apps which the carrier installs on your device (I assume they're paid to do it) which you can't uninstall. Facebook is frequently one of these apps. Google addressed that in Marshmallow as well, by giving you the option to disable such apps. They're still installed and still take up storage space, which is what I guess is what's required for the carrier to meet the terms of their pre-install contract, but the app is prohibited from running.
Also, note that none of these restrictions apply to the OS themselves. e.g. Apple has harvested iOS users' location data in the past (they buried the request for permission in the EULA for an iOS update). Google does as well, but lets you deny it permission if you want.
The story makes it sound as though Facebook was doing something underhanded and nefarious.
It is underhanded and nefarious to abuse access your app was given for one purpose (e.g. access to your contacts so you can directly go from someone's Facebook post to calling them via the phone's dialer) and use it for something else which the user won't suspect because it's unnecessary for the operation of the app (downloading the entire contact list). Or for a non-Facebook example, you might give an app access to the microphone so it can capture a sample of a song that's playing on your radio, so the app can ID the song. It would be underhanded and nefarious for that app to then use the microphone to spy on everything you're saying. When I give the plumber permission to enter my house to fix the sink, it'd be underhanded and nefarious for him to then go into my bedroom and rifle through my home video collection and take a private sex tape.
Terrorism has some sort of political goal - you are trying to get other people to change their behavior. Hence the name, you're trying to elicit terror in your target group, as a motivator to get them to change behavior.
Based on early reports, this guy seems to be a straight out psychopath. His motive seems to be nothing more than doing it for thrills. Timothy Mcveigh was a white terrorist. I'm not convinced that this guy is. Anarchist is probably a better match.
The modern equivalent of pykrete is FRP - fiber reinforced polymer (both fiberglass and carbon fiber). Instead of sawdust, you use glass or carbon fibers. Instead of ice, you use a plastic polymer resin (usually polyester or epoxy). The mechanics are different from pykrete, but the concept is the same - take two materials with opposite strengths and weaknesses, and pair them together. In Pykrete, the ice is structurally strong but very susceptible to fracture. The sawdust is weak, but acts as barriers to stop cracks in the ice from progressing the moment it hits a sawdust grain. In FRP, the plastic is very resistant to damage, but structurally weak against tearing aka fracturing (why it's hard to open shrink wrap until you get that first tear in). The fibers are very strong, but weak against damage from sharp bends. Embedding the fibers in the the plastic makes FRP stronger and harder to tear since the load gets transferred to the fibers, and it protects the fibers from damage caused by bending at sharp angles. Reinforced concrete (steel beams added to concrete) is similar.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of success are even worse for student-athletes aiming for a career in professional sports. Yet the suicide rate among student athletes is lower than for other college students. Perhaps those jocks aren't as dumb as the nerds assumed them to be? None of my athlete friends from high school made it into professional sports, but all of them seem to have found successful and fulfilling careers in other fields.
I suspect what's going on is most people's mistaken approach to sunk costs. Post-grads have so much invested in their education in their chosen field that they find it difficult to give it all up in search of a job in other fields. Athletes knew from the beginning the odds were against them, so have always had the idea in the back of their minds that they might end up working in another field. So when their desired career path turns into misery, post-grads persist on their chosen self-destructive path, while athletes see the writing on the wall and drop back to one of their secondary career choices.
That is the definition of ionizing radiation. RF radiation can't selectively knock apart the atoms in molecules until it reach a certain quantum energy level. Below that level, all the radiation does (if absorbed) is heat up the molecules (makes the atoms vibrate faster). Radiation which can knock apart atoms is called ionizing radiation. Radiation which cannot is called non-ionizing.
The boundary between these two is right around ultraviolent light. So contrary to what GP stated, UV light is harmful because it is ionizing. A sunburn is literally genetic damage to your skin cells' DNA which caused them to die.
Radio waves lie far beneath this ionizing threshold. So there is no know mechanism by which radio waves could cause genetic damage other than thermal. And if you dumped enough thermal radio energy into rats to cause genetic damage, they'd be cooked and genetic damage would be the least of their worries.
If the AI in its buggy state is still safer than human drivers, then it makes more sense to roll it out in its buggy state rather than wait until it's been debugged. As critical as I am of Tesla naming the feature "autopilot", it does seem to lower accident rates on average. Pointing to specific incidents of failures when the average failure rate has actually gone down, is nothing but cherry picking data contrary to the average to support the conclusion you want.
Another reason is if you deliberately want the URL to be short-lived. e.g. You want to post a link to a public form like slashdot, but you don't want it around forever in slashdot's archives. It's easier to use a URL shortening service which allows you to delete the shortened URL at a later date, than it is to change the URL on your website.
This actually highlights the problem with our legal system more than it does what caused the collapse. Lawyers have filed a lawsuit (i.e. are certain who is blame) while the investigation has barely started and is still collecting evidence, and is probably a year away from reaching a conclusion.
If you want to argue that the lawyers aren't certain, they just want be first to get their speculative lawsuit in, then that's yet another problem with our legal system. That the penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit is so lacking that lawyers can file speculative lawsuits with impunity without a shred of evidence to back up their claim, gambling that such evidence might turn up in the future. Thereby forcing countless innocent defendants to waste money preparing a defense against lawsuits which never should have been filed in the first place.
Night owls don't stay up late and wake up late because they like to party and are lazy to wake up in the morning. Researchers have found that not everyone's biological clock runs at exactly 24 hours. Those whose clock runs slower (say 25 hours) are night owls - they tend to still be alert after the earth's rotation says they should've gone to sleep, and likewise tend to wake up later because their biological clock put them to sleep later. Those whose clock runs faster (say 23 hours) are morning larks - they tend to wake up earlier because their biological clock put them to sleep more quickly, and likewise they tend to fall asleep earlier in the night.
BTW, studies have shown people's average biological clock (when deprived of reference to day/night cycles) is 24.2 hours to 25 hours. So it's actually the night owls who are normal, and the morning larks who are abnormal.
The concept is much older than Star Trek. The earliest fictional reference I know of is a Ray Bradbury short story which is apparently too short to merit its own wiki entry. It's about a spacecraft diving close to the sun to scoop up some of its material (albeit for profit, not research).
The warning requirement is due to Proposition 65, a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986 (I was too young to vote then, but did my best to try to warn people how stupid it was going to be if it passed). The judge's hands here are mostly tied. According to the proposition, if there are studies which show a material can cause cancer (not just in people but in laboratory animals), then the warning is required. I've often joked that it should be required above every exit door since sunlight is known to cause cancer.
The warning is pretty much useless now - every store and nearly every product has it so it carries zero information value. The only function it now serves is to enrich a small group of lawyers who go around filing lawsuits against small businesses (mostly owned by new immigrants who have no idea such a silly law could exist) who failed to buy a $5 warning placard to post somewhere in their business. They usually manage to wrestle $2k to $10k from the small business to settle the lawsuit.
I'm the last person to want to defend Facebook - I don't even have FB account because I disagree with how invasive their data mining is. But if you're going to criticize FB for the negative things that come about from the increased connectivity their site enables, you also have to give them credit for the positive things that come about from the same connectivity. Getting in touch with long-lost friends, getting out news of major life events without having to resort to the telephone grapevine, easier dissemination of information about good/fun places to visit and better ways to do things based on the feedback of others you know. If you evaluate it that way, billions of people have voted by using FB that, based on a cursory evaluation of the benefits versus drawbacks (i.e. possibly unaware of the privacy implications), FB is for them on average a positive influence on their lives.
Criticizing FB solely on the basis of the bad things their social network can bring about is like criticizing vaccines solely on the basis of the few cases where they wind up killing people who are inoculated. You can't do that - you have to add up both the good and the bad. The most you can do with just the bad is criticize them for not taking enough steps to try to mitigate how their service can be used to promulgate the bad.
The ACLU has (perhaps not surprisingly) chosen to promote the former, which leaves the public on the hook for paying for it all. With the latter, the private sector pays for it while the public reaps the benefit. It's important to understand that the major cable internet companies aren't natural monopolies like Microsoft. They were given a monopoly by local governments who got into the regulation game to keep telephone poles from becoming too cluttered with wires, but somehow it morphed into a scheme where in exchange for a monopoly the local government got kickbacks or other guarantees from the sole ISP. This is why net neutrality isn't as big an issue in other parts of the world - most non-Americans have a choice of multiple ISPs, and can simply switch to a different ISP if theirs does anything stupid like try to throttle Netflix. The problems net neutrality tries to solve are only possible because of these government-granted monopolies.
The issue is that porn is one of those businesses where the producers will seek out and try new methods of distribution long before the mainstream does. Essentially Bezos used erotic novel authors to help jumpstart amazon.com (Amazon began as an online bookstore). Now that it's branched out and grown big enough that Bezoes doesn't feel he needs them anymore, he's burying them. It is literally climbing on the backs of other people to haul yourself up into a dominant position, then discarding them. Decent people don't do that. They acknowledge those who helped them rise up to success, and even give them a helping hand in the future (I scratch your back, you scratch mine). I'd been hoping Bezos was better than this, but it's sounding like he's just another Gates, Jobs, or Ellison (take as much as you can, and discard the person once they lose their usefulness).
This is all so simple to fix without taking the drastic step Amazon seems to have taken (based on the summary - TFA won't load in my browser due to some script it's trying to run). You flag all products which could be considered adult. Then you add a "hide adult content" setting in the account settings and set it to On by default, and let the user decide whether to leave it on or turn it off. The physical analogy is a room in the back of the video rental store where you put all the adult videos, and customers can decide for themselves whether or not to go into that room.
This seems like a poor business for using contractors. Outsourced contractors usually works best if they're the sole contractor, or (for multiple contractors) when the customer needs a one-off product or service. If someone needs a database interface rewritten and the data ported over, or you need a broken pipe under the sink fixed, a contractor is fine.
Contractors usually don't work well for repeated and word-of-mouth businesses like housekeeping. Here, consistency becomes an important characteristic. And you can't have consistency if the housekeeper that comes to your house each week is a different person using different cleaning products and different tools, who emphasizes cleaning different things. And word-of-mouth advertising doesn't work if the quality of service you get will be completely different from the quality of service the person who gave you the recommendation got. You need the control that hiring people as employees gives you, so you can create the consistency that your customers expect.
What's needed is a remote desktop server for Android and iOS, which will allow you to display your phone or tablet's screen on your laptop. Then you can do your personal browsing on your phone or tablet, while using your work laptop's much bigger screen and keyboard and more precise mouse/trackpad.
should be automatically stripped down to:
Latest estimate is that 54% of the world's population lives in cities. That's over 4 billion people. So $3 billion spent on surveillance works out to less than 75 cents per person.
Of course most of that spending is skewed towards developed countries. But even there, the OECD accounts for about 18% of the world's population, or 1.37 billion. 68% of them live in cities, or 930 million. So $3 billion represents about $3.20 per OECD citizen, or 0.017% of the average OECD government spending of $18,496 per citizen.
History is full of martyrs who have chosen to die for things they believed in, rather than live without fighting them. We remember them because of their steadfast dedication to their cause despite the horrible choices it left them. Would you know who Nelson Mandela was if he'd simply fled South Africa instead of stayed to fight against apartheid, even though that choice fated him to spend 25 years in prison?
There's actually a tie-in with the immigration debate here. We are so eager to grant amnesty to political refugees fleeing their country because it seems the humane thing to do. But doing so prolongs the very political conditions those people are fleeing, by siphoning off the population willing to fight the oppressive regime, and thus condemning millions more to continue to suffer under that regime. Political change comes about from people willing to stay, fight, and if necessary die for their cause. Not from people who merely try to flee bad conditions. When Castro emptied his prisons and the U.S. willingly took them as refugees, it relieved him of having to pay to house and feed them, and of the political backlash he would have suffered had he merely executed them. He picked a course of action which allowed him to most easily prolong his totalitarian regime at the least cost - allow dissidents to flee the country thus reducing opposition to him within the country, and eliminating the international condemnation against keeping them imprisoned or executing them.
Assange needs to decide if the political weight his name carries helps his cause more by staying in the gilded cage, or by making the harder choice and facing prison in Britain. In that respect he has a real political choice here. Whining that neither choice is a good one from the standpoint of personal comfort won't help his cause.
Third possibility: out of a billion or so ad impressions (say 1 million slashdot readers who use Facebook multiplied by a thousand ad impressions per reader over the years), there are a few random ads which just by coincidence happened to match a recent conversation. And when this topic came up, those handful of users which experienced this coincidence self-selected themselves and posted their experience.
In the past, people attributed this sort of thing to psychic or paranormal ability. More recently, people have become familiar with it as cherry picking data, like a brokerage recommending buying several thousand stocks during the year, but in their ads purporting to show how good their selections are, they present the performance of only their top five picks. To properly gauge if Facebook is listening to your conversations via this methodology, you also need to collect data on when you had a conversation and Facebook didn't deliver an ad relevant to that conversation. And compare how many times it happened to how many times it didn't.
Because the phone did not belong to the terrorist. It belonged the San Bernardino County government. It was assigned to the terrorist for work use (i.e. he didn't own nor pay for it, and he was only supposed to use it for tasks which the owner could audit anyway). On top of that, the guy was dead, and legally thus far your human rights evaporate upon death.
Apple spun it as a privacy issue, as if the government were trying to get into your personal phone, and the press ate it up. That wasn't the case here at all. The closest personal analogy would be if you bought an iPhone for your kid with the clear understanding that it was only on loan to him, and he ended up being killed while committing a crime which made national headlines, and the police wanted to see if the contents of the phone you bought him might help their investigation, but you didn't know your kid's password. The precedent that was set wasn't that Apple wouldn't help the police break into your phone. The precedent that was set was that Apple wouldn't help you break into your own phone.
A walled garden is designed to keep you in. In a walled garden, the user has no choice - they cannot leave. Prohibiting access to other app stores makes for a walled garden. So does prohibiting certain apps which compete with yours.
This move is designed to keep people using non-approved Android installations out. You still have the option of choosing if you want to be on the inside or outside. In that respect it's fence with a gate in it, not a wall. And FWIW the common Google Apps (Gmail, Maps, Calendar, Docs, etc.) still work fine in a browser. So the fence has a lot of holes in it.
The crucial part will be if they include the Play Store in the list of apps which won't work. It's by far the biggest store in the Android marketplace. Amazon's is a distant second. And a lot of the apps in both the Play and Amazon stores aren't updated as frequently in Amazon's store.
Comment was modded funny. But several foreign students I met in college and grad school racked up thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in credit card and loan debt, then simply left the country when they graduated. They never planned to stay in the U.S. or visit again after graduating, and never intended to pay these back.
In Android you can just create a second user without a password and login to it. It'll have access to your installed apps (free ones and ones which are authorized for that account), but not your data (unless rooted and you have a file browser with root privileges). Unless you actually check for user accounts, it'll look just like a plain single-account unlocked phone.
What people need to understand is that the Internet brought with it the capability of committing a crime in one legal jurisdiction, while sitting in another legal jurisdiction. In this case, committing a crime in one country while sitting in another. One of the basic assumptions in nearly all our laws is that the crime and the perpetrator are/were in the same legal jurisdiction at the time the crime was committed. So they're not set up to handle these new Internet crimes.
Extradition treaties were created more for the case of a perpetrator of a crime in one country fleeing to another country. In those cases, it's clear the suspect committed a crime at the time, but up to the country he fled to to decide if it's something he should be extradited for. In Internet crimes, the person in one country may have been acting completely legally where he was residing, while his actions in a remote location were a crime at that location. The closest non-Internet analogy would be if someone in one country shot and killed someone in another country, when the shooting would've been justifiable in country but not the other.
When there's a mismatch between the two country's laws on whether the act was a crime, neither extreme solution works. If you do take one extreme and decide that the laws of the country of residence should always apply, then every country will simply make it not a crime to hack computers in other countries. And the Internet will break as everyone sets up filters to block all IP addresses outside their country except for certain whitelisted IPs. If you take the other extreme that the laws of the country where it was a crime should apply, then you enable a mechanism whereby countries with extremely restrictive laws (e.g. China) can reach out into other countries and imprison people who are acting legally there.
It'll take years, if not decades for our laws to grapple with and come up with some reasonable-sounding solution. I've been thinking of it on and off for years, and still haven't come up with anything which seems reasonable.
2012 (iOS 6) was also when Apple added the ability to decline giving an app a specific permission. So you could install an app but deny it a certain permission that it wanted. Google had that feature in beta since 2013, but didn't finalize it until Marshmallow (2015). (Marshmallow revamped how the OS and apps interacted, making it more difficult for apps to bypass OS-imposed restrictions like this.)
Neither will let you deny an app permission to access the Internet (using up your cellular data quota). I'm guessing this is to protect app makers' ad revenue streams. You have to root your phone to do that, which is what I've done on my Android phones since 2012 with a firewall app. Newly installed apps have their network access blocked by default, until I enable it. I see firewall apps in Google's store which claim to work without root, but I've never tried them since I've always been rooted.
Another issue has been apps which the carrier installs on your device (I assume they're paid to do it) which you can't uninstall. Facebook is frequently one of these apps. Google addressed that in Marshmallow as well, by giving you the option to disable such apps. They're still installed and still take up storage space, which is what I guess is what's required for the carrier to meet the terms of their pre-install contract, but the app is prohibited from running.
Also, note that none of these restrictions apply to the OS themselves. e.g. Apple has harvested iOS users' location data in the past (they buried the request for permission in the EULA for an iOS update). Google does as well, but lets you deny it permission if you want.
It is underhanded and nefarious to abuse access your app was given for one purpose (e.g. access to your contacts so you can directly go from someone's Facebook post to calling them via the phone's dialer) and use it for something else which the user won't suspect because it's unnecessary for the operation of the app (downloading the entire contact list). Or for a non-Facebook example, you might give an app access to the microphone so it can capture a sample of a song that's playing on your radio, so the app can ID the song. It would be underhanded and nefarious for that app to then use the microphone to spy on everything you're saying. When I give the plumber permission to enter my house to fix the sink, it'd be underhanded and nefarious for him to then go into my bedroom and rifle through my home video collection and take a private sex tape.
Terrorism has some sort of political goal - you are trying to get other people to change their behavior. Hence the name, you're trying to elicit terror in your target group, as a motivator to get them to change behavior.
Based on early reports, this guy seems to be a straight out psychopath. His motive seems to be nothing more than doing it for thrills. Timothy Mcveigh was a white terrorist. I'm not convinced that this guy is. Anarchist is probably a better match.
The modern equivalent of pykrete is FRP - fiber reinforced polymer (both fiberglass and carbon fiber). Instead of sawdust, you use glass or carbon fibers. Instead of ice, you use a plastic polymer resin (usually polyester or epoxy). The mechanics are different from pykrete, but the concept is the same - take two materials with opposite strengths and weaknesses, and pair them together. In Pykrete, the ice is structurally strong but very susceptible to fracture. The sawdust is weak, but acts as barriers to stop cracks in the ice from progressing the moment it hits a sawdust grain. In FRP, the plastic is very resistant to damage, but structurally weak against tearing aka fracturing (why it's hard to open shrink wrap until you get that first tear in). The fibers are very strong, but weak against damage from sharp bends. Embedding the fibers in the the plastic makes FRP stronger and harder to tear since the load gets transferred to the fibers, and it protects the fibers from damage caused by bending at sharp angles. Reinforced concrete (steel beams added to concrete) is similar.