In the Netherlands, the main sports people watch on television is soccer. Nothing more. The national soccer bond has their own live streaming of the 2 leagues and all the international games service which you can subscribe on. National television usually broadcasts the national team if they play a match and there is public television that is streamed by the station itself for "other sports". We have a crowd of people watching Formula 1 on any of two or three channels that usually provide the feed on television, but it's the only sport that can be found "free" on cable that isn't streamed "free" on the internet that has a significant of people watch.
It's being done, it's proven commercially viable because we have enough density of high speed internet to satisfy "the fans". The reason it won't work in the USA yet, is because there aren't enough people able to watch these streams. Once broadband gets enough penetration, Cable and satellite TV will be dead as disco, unless they will start providing a-la-carte channels instead of bundles.
Don't forget that Netflix has their own exclusive series now. You can't get those on cable or satellite and this means that people will eventually be going to want both services. Given the netflix pricing schedule, it will be relatively cheap for people to have both and only pay for the netflix stuff they can't get on cable, or not when they want it. Paying cable for expensive upgrades like a DVR feature will happen less and less because of this.
Advertising income from channels will be lower because fewer people will be watching, even if the potential viewer number doesn't change. That means that the channels offering the content and the producers of the content will look for different ways of making money. They could charge the cable companies more, making cable more unattractive for more and more people, or they could go on the internet. They could do both. Regardless which they choose, the cable companies will have to choose to either get more expensive, or cut costs somewhere internally in their organization. The end result will be that they will have to spend more money on marketing to compensate for the lower quality and/or the higher price, again resulting in a less satisfied customer.
It doesn't take much more than what is already happening to trip the balance for the cable and satellite companies. It's already happening and it will be a matter of time until they will start to change their pricing model and offer you to pay per channel. It may take some bankruptcies for this to happen, but it will happen soon enough. That won't be the end, but they'll be around as long as enough people can't get high speed internet in their homes. Cable TV will probably die sooner than Satellite, but in the end, we'll all be watching IP-based streams, or whatever the prevailing technology is by then.
At any location a few hundred miles out of the coast, the chances of wood ending up there are way too small for any species to rely on that. In general, almost all wood floats. Wooden ship wrecks sink mainly because ships have ballast and metal bits, or the lighter than water parts are eaten by bacteria. It's the same bacteria that eventually will make all thrift wood sink, unless it's washed ashore somewhere. Wood that is heavier than water by itself tends to not end up far from shores anyway.
Given the fact that wood is a rare food source under water regardless of where you are, the question is what the wildlife that causes ship wrecks to decay feasts on when they are lacking historical nautical drama to dine on. Apparently the Antarctic seas aren't providing enough of that to be a sustainable habitat for these creatures. There are plenty of algae available in the higher layers of the Antarctic seas, or they wouldn't be able to sustain the krill population that the whales and fish feed on, but it could very well be that that is the only plant life and no larger plants are growing there. I haven't bothered looking that up, but it sounds to me that this is a much more likely explanation than "lack of trees on land" would be.
MicroSoft had plenty of time to fix it after they got into the first round of the altercation. I doubt they'd have trouble if they actually asked Google for coding help when they found out (they must have done that themselves) that they didn't get the ads serving done properly using the documented API calls. To me this seems like a case of "too stubborn and proud to accept they need help" and they got their app blocked.
Mind you, it's not as if you can't view YouTube on Windows Phone 8 anymore, it's just that you have to use a web browser to do so. The users aren't being deprived by Google, only MicroSofts app is. It's not directly about copyrights or cash money either, it's about the ads that are supposed to pay for the content. This was clearly the only reason Google was going to block them if they didn't fix it properly and they knew from the moment they got their notice that they weren't doing it properly.
A commercial life span of a car is 10 years or 200000 kms in Europe. In the USA, that's still 10 years or 125000 miles. Your 10 to 15 year old car is worth nothing and if it were to fall apart, that is considered normal according to commercial standards.
Now that we have established that, I do agree that if a car that was still made when cars weren't as expendable as they are made currently, it should be reasonably expectable that you won't need major overhaul on most of them after 10 years or 125000 miles, if it has been maintained decently. However, most dealerships only do the minimal required to drag the car to it's 10 year commercial life end and hardly will do proper preventative maintenance. They may charge you for it, but that doesn't mean they will actually do what's required to keep your car in the best condition, regardless of it's commercial value or life span left.
I maintain my own cars, I have been doing this for the last 10 years and my youngest car is 15 years old. All my cars are close to or way over the 200000 km mark. All of them are made by Alfa Romeo. I work on several other brands as well and I can tell you that given to a certain degree, they all are made expendable. I've done practically everything you can do to repair a car on my own cars and/or other peoples cars. once a car is 10 years old, nobody in the professional motor industry is going to consider it economically relevant any more and most cars are made to not last longer than that. Most gasoline engines will have serious wear to piston rings and valve guides, requiring a rebuild to get the power back and the oil consumption reduced. Wheel bearings will have worn. Suspension bearings/bushings will have worn. With the paint technology they had 10 to 15 years ago, your car will most likely be rusting. They had rust proofing pretty well under control, but then the environmental problems of those processes made them illegal and they had to resort to new "cleaner" processes that didn't work very well. There are plenty of other parts that wear out as well. Fans in the car ventilation, door locks and latches, even the car body itself will start showing more flex and metal fatigue. Plastics and such that are responsible for crash absorption will lose strength, seat belt tensioners, the list goes on. It takes a lot of maintenance to keep a car in a "young" condition, especially once you reach the moment that the designed life span for most parts is reached. Making them last longer costs more in production and will result in your vehicle being more expensive than the competition, without a lot of direct benefits that the potential buyer will be aware of. Most car companies choose to produce cheaper and just let the car fall apart after a little over 10 years or 125000 miles as a result.
The usual FUD reaction when they see an open source technology compete with their core business. Free Hypervisors made them lose money on just providing those. Now they need to get the money from the enterprise management system tools they made. Unfortunately, open source tools try and manage them all, while their business is based on managing mostly their own hypervisor offerings and not the open source ones, or the ones from their competitors.
RedHat is in on OpenStack and they're putting big bucks behind it. Give it a few years, and VMWare will be the one that has to catch up on Enterprise readyness. Just managing a single group of KVM or XEN hypervisors is already working just fine if you use RHEV (the paid and supported version of oVirt) and I have no doubt that managing clouds will be on par shortly now that big money and many developers are being deployed.
The first thing this will be used for is going to be porn, not Shakespeare. The disturbing thing is that it will be used for all sorts of porn "frowned upon" as well. How legal is this generated porn and can the creator of the application be held liable for generating the content?
It will take some rather nasty inhumane test to figure out if cancers in stage 1A will in fact become mortal. There is a lot of speculation and I believe even testing on lab animals to figure out how much of "early detected" will in fact develop into something more threatening. From what I understand, a significant amount of breast cancer growths will essentially "kill themselves" after a while in certain types of breast cancer. How much of this applies to other sorts of cancers is something that we don't have a lot of knowledge about yet. Animal testing might give us a clue, but unfortunately (or luckily), doing double blind tests to see what exact sorts of human cancers in what stage will develop into something worse and how many will disappear isn't going to happen.
Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't treat cancer if it's not developed, but I'm trying to explain that we don't know the true statistics of "survival" from early detection, since we don't know the rate of survival in untreated patients. Statistics can be extremely hard to use properly and this is one of the cases where I think those percentages are not proven accurate.
They may get "vastly increased privacy" in return for their phone not working optimally and increased mobile bills because they still get charged for the amount of traffic they use. The cell phone provider tracks them just the same and those records are kept for a long time so the government can get them if they wish so. Yes, some "free market" party getting similar data on you and selling it to anyone interested is going to have a much bigger impact on the life of the people that "have nothing to hide", but over 80% will value the functioning of the WiFi on their phone over that.
I'm fairly certain you can set location based profiles on at least modern Android, where you can use aGPS to switch on WiFi, blutooth and such. You can set the "automatically look for wireless networks" feature manually too. What you are suggesting is already implemented. The fact that almost nobody knows this and nobody I know uses it to increase their privacy, even the security professionals, shows how much people care about this. They want their FaceBook status updates and WhatsApp and whatnot and that is way more important than their privacy. By the way, does the FaceBook mobile app log your location to the mothership? I'd be surprised if it didn't to be honest....
There's more you don't get. The person you commented on doesn't post a "real" private life on the internet, but a fake one. If anyone were to look him up, they'd find something plausible, non shocking boring information. Probably enough to leave him alone and not bother looking any further. That's the trick, not having a life that isn't worth hiding, but hiding behind a fake life.
Paper mail is not opened or scanned unless there is an actual warrant. Yes, they will "log" your mail and possibly take a picture of the envelope, but you don't have to put a "valid" senders address on the envelope and you can post away from home. As far as drag net "security" from the NSA and such, paper mail is more or less left alone. You can still encrypt the contents and sign it with a private key. Even if they open up the envelope, they won't be able to decrypt if they don't have the key and your encryption is sound.
Ruthless greed until the host is dead, short term profit and manipulation of the "hosts" to get more profit. The only thing missing in the model is HFT
You don't want "a barcode" or something on the paper to represent your vote, since that can't be read (easily) by humans. We only get to vote every few years. If it's too much trouble to count those votes or if it's absolutely vital "for democracy" that we know the result of the elections the second the election closes, we have something wrong in our democracy. Cast votes in a non-tech way that each civilian can verify if he or she can read. Count the votes afterwards, have them recount by someone else. Keep a group of people from all camps in the voting office and during the counting present. That way, it will be almost impossible to rig the votes, it will be just as expensive or even cheaper then electronic voting, because expensive machines that require programming for every use and then get put away for a long period are extremely expensive per election and people are cheap and/or volunteer. There is nothing that needs improving on the technology of voting. If people don't come to vote, it means that politics aren't interesting enough for them. If candidates would have a program that would actually mean something to the people eligible to vote, they will show up, even if they have to take time off work for it. Maybe that's what needs improvement?
This is common knowledge already. A vulnerability is not the same as a risk. A risk is the impact of the vulnerability, multiplied by the damage you'll sustain if it is exploited. chance*damage=risk.
You could very well have a vulnerability that is real, that will be exploited, but will not lead to any damage. Since there is no economical viability to fix it, you leave it be. You could have a vulnerability that will be very unlikely to be exploited. However, if it should be exploited, your business will instantly go bankrupt. This vulnerability, is way more important to fix for you than the first example, even though the chance that something will happen is very small.
Prioritize on risk, not on just chance or on what direct gains an attacker should get from exploitation. Risk is unique for your organization, so make sure you have all possible scenarios worked out and a risk matrix available when it's time to assess the impact a vulnerability will have on your organization.
By saving all these lives, there will be more people in areas that can already not support the number of people that live there. They will be even poorer than before, there will be more hunger and other contagious diseases will take over from malaria and polio to make these people ill and die. It's very noble for him to try and eradicate these awful diseases, but it won't solve the problems of the people in these poor areas.
Getting political stability happening and viable local economies running will do much more for these people in the future. Part of that is not dumping excess food from the rich countries there so that local farmers can't sell their crops any more. Part of that is paying a fair price for products and produce that are exported from those countries if they adhere to environmental and humanitarian production processes we demand from our local producers. By putting large import taxes on products created in countries where wages are low, all you do is create an incentive to lower costs and treat people and the environment badly as a result. By putting taxes on products created under unsafe, unfair and polluting circumstances, you can "force" these countries to actually fix themselves, instead of relying on philanthropists to provide polio vaccin or a flushable toilet.
Bill Gates owns a lot of shares in companies that actively "abuse" the people he's trying to help here. Why not put those shares to use and force these companies to do good? I'm sure his share in Monsanto might be convincing enough to stop them suing farmers that accidentally are growing round-up produce because they bought seeds at a local market that happened to have their genetically modified genes in them. 3rd world country seed markets are different than western markets. In practice, you have to use Monsanto's seeds in large areas because you can't really be sure your land will be free of their genes, even though the seeds and the round-up are way too expensive for most farmers. If you don't use it, you risk being taken to court and go bankrupt instantly. Monsanto is just an example, Bill Gates stock portfolio holds many more companies that profit from the inequality and he's making more money on this portfolio than he's giving back to the poor. That's his right to do so, but telling others they look bad and what he's doing himself is good, is rather hypocritical of him.
Why would nagios or zabbix be overkill if your product still requires a 3rd party server to set stuff up? I'm sure you could find some service that would monitor your blog (or whatever publicly accessible service) and alert you if it's broken on the internet. Come to think of it, by sending you an ad in the alert message, you may even set up a business making this "free" for the user of the service. It's probably done already, if not, feel free to use the idea.
The problem is that you can't really turn off this behaviour and it does it automatically. Every client (laptop, tablet, phone, other wireless device) that does this fully automatic, may leak Active Directory account data that could be used to actually log on to file servers as well. It's not just MicroSoft that has this problem with PEAP, but that it's apparently not possible (at least not easily) to put some safety measures on the phone so you can mitigate this. I'm sure there will be other PEAP client implementations on other vendors devices that will suffer from this "automatically leaking AD logon data", but apparently, most vendors don't do it as bad as MS?
Apple and Google rule the smart phone world now, but before the iPhone you wanted WinCE devices like the XDA and iPaq. They had the chance and the market position but failed to conquer the iPhone successfully. By the time there was "Apple, BlackBerry and the rest" Google got in and by combining google accounts and multiple vendors offering the same OS, they got their current position. MicroSoft kept trying combining their desktop business model and apps with mobile, resulting in expensive phones that lacked features people wanted and came with features people weren't interested in at that price point. Developers were angry because all their apps needed to be rewritten for newer winCE/windows phone versions and if you wanted a newer windows phone version, you had to buy a new phone with it. There was a lot of inconsistency and doubt about how future proof an investment in the mobile windows phone platform would be for almost any party in the smart phone economy, resulting in people betting on other horses.
MicroSoft had the position, they created it themselves and then lost it once the smart phone really started taking off as a platform. MicroSoft had their way, they worked hard for it but they thought that they could pull another MS-DOS on the organizer-turned-smart-phone and then messed it up.
The amount of lead you need to get into your body to get a negative effect is extremely small. The same applies to wildlife. The "dust" coming from firing bullets in the shooting range could very well be in significant amounts. Being on the range once a week and inhaling the air there for thirty minutes may just be more than enough for permanent damage to your health. This is not even about the environment, this is your personal health and safety as a shooter. I don't know the exact amounts we are talking about here, but you seem at least as uninformed about this as I am. It may be wise to actually check the data before proclaiming it's not a problem, like you do here.
What I do know, is that wildlife, the very game you are shooting and the animals that pray on them, actually do suffer from the lead that ends up in nature from hunting. Birth rate and deformed newborn animals are clearly influenced by the amount of lead entering the environment from hunting. There are plenty of studies that will support that.
I'd like to see studies that support the absolute link between the number of gun holders and the crime rate in an area. I've seen gun ownership numbers per country and there doesn't really seem to be a clear correlation between the two. Canada has way lower crime rate than the USA and has a similar gun ownership number. Several European countries have low crime rates and a low gun ownership percentage. I haven't seen one serious study so far that proves that more gun owners gets crime rates down, only correlation/causation statistically flawed comparisons.
First of all, your brain doesn't have pain receptors, so that part you won't feel. Your retina, the part of the eye that is (visible) light sensitive, does have pain sensors. It takes until cells are damaged for them to start triggering and you won't "see" anything happening. It will just feel like your eye balls hurt like hell and your vision will be gone. Since the intro mentioned "see", the answer will be no. You won't see it happening and if it does, you probably will see even less other things than before.
"Stuff you believe in" is about spiritualism. As soon as you organize that formally with multiple people, it's about religion. If you want any legal benefits from it, you register it as a "religion". This is why a bunch of people want to formally register their spiritual beliefs, to make sure that they are protected by law.
What's the problem of people dying exactly? As a species, we can more than afford this and the people dying almost exclusively knew the dangers and chose voluntarily to expose themselves. People die for the most stupid reasons all of the time. It's part of life, not every death should have a significant meaning. People die from the most silly things all the time. Parachute jumping comes to mind as a good analogy. Stunt plane flying deaths haven't stopped people flying stunt planes either. The luxury we can afford as a species means people die from silly causes. As long as we can afford us these sorts of deaths, they will continue.
Ultrabooks can be used on your lap with a keyboard. Try doing that with a Surface Pro. Ultrabooks let you decide on the angle the screen sits on a table, try doing that with a Surface Pro. It's severely limited as a laptop replacement because the keyboard and screen can't be connected at an arbitrary angle with only the keyboard supporting the device. Ergonomics for the use as an ultrabook competitor are severely flawed this way.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Netherlands, the main sports people watch on television is soccer. Nothing more. The national soccer bond has their own live streaming of the 2 leagues and all the international games service which you can subscribe on. National television usually broadcasts the national team if they play a match and there is public television that is streamed by the station itself for "other sports". We have a crowd of people watching Formula 1 on any of two or three channels that usually provide the feed on television, but it's the only sport that can be found "free" on cable that isn't streamed "free" on the internet that has a significant of people watch.
It's being done, it's proven commercially viable because we have enough density of high speed internet to satisfy "the fans". The reason it won't work in the USA yet, is because there aren't enough people able to watch these streams. Once broadband gets enough penetration, Cable and satellite TV will be dead as disco, unless they will start providing a-la-carte channels instead of bundles.
Don't forget that Netflix has their own exclusive series now. You can't get those on cable or satellite and this means that people will eventually be going to want both services. Given the netflix pricing schedule, it will be relatively cheap for people to have both and only pay for the netflix stuff they can't get on cable, or not when they want it. Paying cable for expensive upgrades like a DVR feature will happen less and less because of this.
Advertising income from channels will be lower because fewer people will be watching, even if the potential viewer number doesn't change. That means that the channels offering the content and the producers of the content will look for different ways of making money. They could charge the cable companies more, making cable more unattractive for more and more people, or they could go on the internet. They could do both. Regardless which they choose, the cable companies will have to choose to either get more expensive, or cut costs somewhere internally in their organization. The end result will be that they will have to spend more money on marketing to compensate for the lower quality and/or the higher price, again resulting in a less satisfied customer.
It doesn't take much more than what is already happening to trip the balance for the cable and satellite companies. It's already happening and it will be a matter of time until they will start to change their pricing model and offer you to pay per channel. It may take some bankruptcies for this to happen, but it will happen soon enough. That won't be the end, but they'll be around as long as enough people can't get high speed internet in their homes. Cable TV will probably die sooner than Satellite, but in the end, we'll all be watching IP-based streams, or whatever the prevailing technology is by then.
At any location a few hundred miles out of the coast, the chances of wood ending up there are way too small for any species to rely on that. In general, almost all wood floats. Wooden ship wrecks sink mainly because ships have ballast and metal bits, or the lighter than water parts are eaten by bacteria. It's the same bacteria that eventually will make all thrift wood sink, unless it's washed ashore somewhere. Wood that is heavier than water by itself tends to not end up far from shores anyway.
Given the fact that wood is a rare food source under water regardless of where you are, the question is what the wildlife that causes ship wrecks to decay feasts on when they are lacking historical nautical drama to dine on. Apparently the Antarctic seas aren't providing enough of that to be a sustainable habitat for these creatures. There are plenty of algae available in the higher layers of the Antarctic seas, or they wouldn't be able to sustain the krill population that the whales and fish feed on, but it could very well be that that is the only plant life and no larger plants are growing there. I haven't bothered looking that up, but it sounds to me that this is a much more likely explanation than "lack of trees on land" would be.
MicroSoft had plenty of time to fix it after they got into the first round of the altercation. I doubt they'd have trouble if they actually asked Google for coding help when they found out (they must have done that themselves) that they didn't get the ads serving done properly using the documented API calls. To me this seems like a case of "too stubborn and proud to accept they need help" and they got their app blocked.
Mind you, it's not as if you can't view YouTube on Windows Phone 8 anymore, it's just that you have to use a web browser to do so. The users aren't being deprived by Google, only MicroSofts app is. It's not directly about copyrights or cash money either, it's about the ads that are supposed to pay for the content. This was clearly the only reason Google was going to block them if they didn't fix it properly and they knew from the moment they got their notice that they weren't doing it properly.
A commercial life span of a car is 10 years or 200000 kms in Europe. In the USA, that's still 10 years or 125000 miles. Your 10 to 15 year old car is worth nothing and if it were to fall apart, that is considered normal according to commercial standards.
Now that we have established that, I do agree that if a car that was still made when cars weren't as expendable as they are made currently, it should be reasonably expectable that you won't need major overhaul on most of them after 10 years or 125000 miles, if it has been maintained decently. However, most dealerships only do the minimal required to drag the car to it's 10 year commercial life end and hardly will do proper preventative maintenance. They may charge you for it, but that doesn't mean they will actually do what's required to keep your car in the best condition, regardless of it's commercial value or life span left.
I maintain my own cars, I have been doing this for the last 10 years and my youngest car is 15 years old. All my cars are close to or way over the 200000 km mark. All of them are made by Alfa Romeo. I work on several other brands as well and I can tell you that given to a certain degree, they all are made expendable. I've done practically everything you can do to repair a car on my own cars and/or other peoples cars. once a car is 10 years old, nobody in the professional motor industry is going to consider it economically relevant any more and most cars are made to not last longer than that. Most gasoline engines will have serious wear to piston rings and valve guides, requiring a rebuild to get the power back and the oil consumption reduced. Wheel bearings will have worn. Suspension bearings/bushings will have worn. With the paint technology they had 10 to 15 years ago, your car will most likely be rusting. They had rust proofing pretty well under control, but then the environmental problems of those processes made them illegal and they had to resort to new "cleaner" processes that didn't work very well. There are plenty of other parts that wear out as well. Fans in the car ventilation, door locks and latches, even the car body itself will start showing more flex and metal fatigue. Plastics and such that are responsible for crash absorption will lose strength, seat belt tensioners, the list goes on. It takes a lot of maintenance to keep a car in a "young" condition, especially once you reach the moment that the designed life span for most parts is reached. Making them last longer costs more in production and will result in your vehicle being more expensive than the competition, without a lot of direct benefits that the potential buyer will be aware of. Most car companies choose to produce cheaper and just let the car fall apart after a little over 10 years or 125000 miles as a result.
So 451 will be the code the government will issue when they feel they want a revolution?
You made a pinky promise!!!
The usual FUD reaction when they see an open source technology compete with their core business. Free Hypervisors made them lose money on just providing those. Now they need to get the money from the enterprise management system tools they made. Unfortunately, open source tools try and manage them all, while their business is based on managing mostly their own hypervisor offerings and not the open source ones, or the ones from their competitors.
RedHat is in on OpenStack and they're putting big bucks behind it. Give it a few years, and VMWare will be the one that has to catch up on Enterprise readyness. Just managing a single group of KVM or XEN hypervisors is already working just fine if you use RHEV (the paid and supported version of oVirt) and I have no doubt that managing clouds will be on par shortly now that big money and many developers are being deployed.
The first thing this will be used for is going to be porn, not Shakespeare. The disturbing thing is that it will be used for all sorts of porn "frowned upon" as well. How legal is this generated porn and can the creator of the application be held liable for generating the content?
Several variants fo lung cancer and skin cancer can already be detected by sniffer dogs.
It will take some rather nasty inhumane test to figure out if cancers in stage 1A will in fact become mortal. There is a lot of speculation and I believe even testing on lab animals to figure out how much of "early detected" will in fact develop into something more threatening. From what I understand, a significant amount of breast cancer growths will essentially "kill themselves" after a while in certain types of breast cancer. How much of this applies to other sorts of cancers is something that we don't have a lot of knowledge about yet. Animal testing might give us a clue, but unfortunately (or luckily), doing double blind tests to see what exact sorts of human cancers in what stage will develop into something worse and how many will disappear isn't going to happen.
Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't treat cancer if it's not developed, but I'm trying to explain that we don't know the true statistics of "survival" from early detection, since we don't know the rate of survival in untreated patients. Statistics can be extremely hard to use properly and this is one of the cases where I think those percentages are not proven accurate.
They may get "vastly increased privacy" in return for their phone not working optimally and increased mobile bills because they still get charged for the amount of traffic they use. The cell phone provider tracks them just the same and those records are kept for a long time so the government can get them if they wish so. Yes, some "free market" party getting similar data on you and selling it to anyone interested is going to have a much bigger impact on the life of the people that "have nothing to hide", but over 80% will value the functioning of the WiFi on their phone over that.
I'm fairly certain you can set location based profiles on at least modern Android, where you can use aGPS to switch on WiFi, blutooth and such. You can set the "automatically look for wireless networks" feature manually too. What you are suggesting is already implemented. The fact that almost nobody knows this and nobody I know uses it to increase their privacy, even the security professionals, shows how much people care about this. They want their FaceBook status updates and WhatsApp and whatnot and that is way more important than their privacy. By the way, does the FaceBook mobile app log your location to the mothership? I'd be surprised if it didn't to be honest....
There's more you don't get. The person you commented on doesn't post a "real" private life on the internet, but a fake one. If anyone were to look him up, they'd find something plausible, non shocking boring information. Probably enough to leave him alone and not bother looking any further. That's the trick, not having a life that isn't worth hiding, but hiding behind a fake life.
Paper mail is not opened or scanned unless there is an actual warrant. Yes, they will "log" your mail and possibly take a picture of the envelope, but you don't have to put a "valid" senders address on the envelope and you can post away from home. As far as drag net "security" from the NSA and such, paper mail is more or less left alone. You can still encrypt the contents and sign it with a private key. Even if they open up the envelope, they won't be able to decrypt if they don't have the key and your encryption is sound.
Ruthless greed until the host is dead, short term profit and manipulation of the "hosts" to get more profit. The only thing missing in the model is HFT
You don't want "a barcode" or something on the paper to represent your vote, since that can't be read (easily) by humans. We only get to vote every few years. If it's too much trouble to count those votes or if it's absolutely vital "for democracy" that we know the result of the elections the second the election closes, we have something wrong in our democracy. Cast votes in a non-tech way that each civilian can verify if he or she can read. Count the votes afterwards, have them recount by someone else. Keep a group of people from all camps in the voting office and during the counting present. That way, it will be almost impossible to rig the votes, it will be just as expensive or even cheaper then electronic voting, because expensive machines that require programming for every use and then get put away for a long period are extremely expensive per election and people are cheap and/or volunteer. There is nothing that needs improving on the technology of voting. If people don't come to vote, it means that politics aren't interesting enough for them. If candidates would have a program that would actually mean something to the people eligible to vote, they will show up, even if they have to take time off work for it. Maybe that's what needs improvement?
This is common knowledge already. A vulnerability is not the same as a risk. A risk is the impact of the vulnerability, multiplied by the damage you'll sustain if it is exploited. chance*damage=risk.
You could very well have a vulnerability that is real, that will be exploited, but will not lead to any damage. Since there is no economical viability to fix it, you leave it be. You could have a vulnerability that will be very unlikely to be exploited. However, if it should be exploited, your business will instantly go bankrupt. This vulnerability, is way more important to fix for you than the first example, even though the chance that something will happen is very small.
Prioritize on risk, not on just chance or on what direct gains an attacker should get from exploitation. Risk is unique for your organization, so make sure you have all possible scenarios worked out and a risk matrix available when it's time to assess the impact a vulnerability will have on your organization.
By saving all these lives, there will be more people in areas that can already not support the number of people that live there. They will be even poorer than before, there will be more hunger and other contagious diseases will take over from malaria and polio to make these people ill and die. It's very noble for him to try and eradicate these awful diseases, but it won't solve the problems of the people in these poor areas.
Getting political stability happening and viable local economies running will do much more for these people in the future. Part of that is not dumping excess food from the rich countries there so that local farmers can't sell their crops any more. Part of that is paying a fair price for products and produce that are exported from those countries if they adhere to environmental and humanitarian production processes we demand from our local producers. By putting large import taxes on products created in countries where wages are low, all you do is create an incentive to lower costs and treat people and the environment badly as a result. By putting taxes on products created under unsafe, unfair and polluting circumstances, you can "force" these countries to actually fix themselves, instead of relying on philanthropists to provide polio vaccin or a flushable toilet.
Bill Gates owns a lot of shares in companies that actively "abuse" the people he's trying to help here. Why not put those shares to use and force these companies to do good? I'm sure his share in Monsanto might be convincing enough to stop them suing farmers that accidentally are growing round-up produce because they bought seeds at a local market that happened to have their genetically modified genes in them. 3rd world country seed markets are different than western markets. In practice, you have to use Monsanto's seeds in large areas because you can't really be sure your land will be free of their genes, even though the seeds and the round-up are way too expensive for most farmers. If you don't use it, you risk being taken to court and go bankrupt instantly. Monsanto is just an example, Bill Gates stock portfolio holds many more companies that profit from the inequality and he's making more money on this portfolio than he's giving back to the poor. That's his right to do so, but telling others they look bad and what he's doing himself is good, is rather hypocritical of him.
Why would nagios or zabbix be overkill if your product still requires a 3rd party server to set stuff up? I'm sure you could find some service that would monitor your blog (or whatever publicly accessible service) and alert you if it's broken on the internet. Come to think of it, by sending you an ad in the alert message, you may even set up a business making this "free" for the user of the service. It's probably done already, if not, feel free to use the idea.
The problem is that you can't really turn off this behaviour and it does it automatically. Every client (laptop, tablet, phone, other wireless device) that does this fully automatic, may leak Active Directory account data that could be used to actually log on to file servers as well. It's not just MicroSoft that has this problem with PEAP, but that it's apparently not possible (at least not easily) to put some safety measures on the phone so you can mitigate this. I'm sure there will be other PEAP client implementations on other vendors devices that will suffer from this "automatically leaking AD logon data", but apparently, most vendors don't do it as bad as MS?
Apple and Google rule the smart phone world now, but before the iPhone you wanted WinCE devices like the XDA and iPaq. They had the chance and the market position but failed to conquer the iPhone successfully. By the time there was "Apple, BlackBerry and the rest" Google got in and by combining google accounts and multiple vendors offering the same OS, they got their current position. MicroSoft kept trying combining their desktop business model and apps with mobile, resulting in expensive phones that lacked features people wanted and came with features people weren't interested in at that price point. Developers were angry because all their apps needed to be rewritten for newer winCE/windows phone versions and if you wanted a newer windows phone version, you had to buy a new phone with it. There was a lot of inconsistency and doubt about how future proof an investment in the mobile windows phone platform would be for almost any party in the smart phone economy, resulting in people betting on other horses.
MicroSoft had the position, they created it themselves and then lost it once the smart phone really started taking off as a platform. MicroSoft had their way, they worked hard for it but they thought that they could pull another MS-DOS on the organizer-turned-smart-phone and then messed it up.
The amount of lead you need to get into your body to get a negative effect is extremely small. The same applies to wildlife. The "dust" coming from firing bullets in the shooting range could very well be in significant amounts. Being on the range once a week and inhaling the air there for thirty minutes may just be more than enough for permanent damage to your health. This is not even about the environment, this is your personal health and safety as a shooter. I don't know the exact amounts we are talking about here, but you seem at least as uninformed about this as I am. It may be wise to actually check the data before proclaiming it's not a problem, like you do here.
What I do know, is that wildlife, the very game you are shooting and the animals that pray on them, actually do suffer from the lead that ends up in nature from hunting. Birth rate and deformed newborn animals are clearly influenced by the amount of lead entering the environment from hunting. There are plenty of studies that will support that.
I'd like to see studies that support the absolute link between the number of gun holders and the crime rate in an area. I've seen gun ownership numbers per country and there doesn't really seem to be a clear correlation between the two. Canada has way lower crime rate than the USA and has a similar gun ownership number. Several European countries have low crime rates and a low gun ownership percentage. I haven't seen one serious study so far that proves that more gun owners gets crime rates down, only correlation/causation statistically flawed comparisons.
First of all, your brain doesn't have pain receptors, so that part you won't feel. Your retina, the part of the eye that is (visible) light sensitive, does have pain sensors. It takes until cells are damaged for them to start triggering and you won't "see" anything happening. It will just feel like your eye balls hurt like hell and your vision will be gone. Since the intro mentioned "see", the answer will be no. You won't see it happening and if it does, you probably will see even less other things than before.
"Stuff you believe in" is about spiritualism. As soon as you organize that formally with multiple people, it's about religion. If you want any legal benefits from it, you register it as a "religion". This is why a bunch of people want to formally register their spiritual beliefs, to make sure that they are protected by law.
What's the problem of people dying exactly? As a species, we can more than afford this and the people dying almost exclusively knew the dangers and chose voluntarily to expose themselves. People die for the most stupid reasons all of the time. It's part of life, not every death should have a significant meaning. People die from the most silly things all the time. Parachute jumping comes to mind as a good analogy. Stunt plane flying deaths haven't stopped people flying stunt planes either. The luxury we can afford as a species means people die from silly causes. As long as we can afford us these sorts of deaths, they will continue.
Ultrabooks can be used on your lap with a keyboard. Try doing that with a Surface Pro. Ultrabooks let you decide on the angle the screen sits on a table, try doing that with a Surface Pro. It's severely limited as a laptop replacement because the keyboard and screen can't be connected at an arbitrary angle with only the keyboard supporting the device. Ergonomics for the use as an ultrabook competitor are severely flawed this way.