The summary is a bit shit, it does touch on the issue but not very well. The $100million wasn't spent just designing the controller, it was spent on pie in the sky research like allowing controllers to emit smell, allowing controllers to project - this wasn't just a case of developing the actual hardware but all the market research that went with that.
I don't think Microsoft can really be faulted to trying something new, isn't that what we always criticise them for here? lacking in innovation? living off of Windows and Office money?
I don't really see what the problem is, even focussing on design it's allowed them to have the nicest controllers especially with the Xbox 360. There's a reason that the Dualshock 4 and Wii U pro controllers make those controllers look much closer to Xbox 360 controllers than they do their predecessors (the grips and such are almost identical now).
We normally give applause to companies that are still trying different things and doing research, I don't understand why just because it's Microsoft it's all "stupid Microsoft", "idiots" and so forth. That's $100 million spent on research, that's exactly what we've been asking companies do - blow money on research in an attempt to innovate, why is this a bad thing? It's better to blow money on research and fail than to just never innovate and always do the same old things. More companies should be doing this - spending their billions on research and innovation.
No worries I know the feeling, I often encounter the problem when writing code, colour vs. colour, center vs. centre. It's worse when I'm thinking up my own variable names - I'm never sure if I should stick to the American spellings so my code is consistent with the APIs or if I should just spell it for UK English so that it makes more sense to my colleagues and such even if it then mismatches the APIs:)
Probably because there was more in it for them personally, they knew they'd make more money in the short term through a sale to Microsoft than playing the long game.
Still shitty for all the staff and for Finland having one of it's largest economic powerhouses effectively asset stripped.
The staggering newsworthy thing in this case is that it was the company with a perceived strong market position that engineered the other company into a struggling position in the first place.
Or in other words, this was one of the most blatant planned corporate sabotages and subsequent buyouts of recent history.
Elop has abysmally failed as a CEO and yet Microsoft are treating him like a hero, even with suggestions he's the frontrunner to run Microsoft itself now. Normally in an acquisition like this he'd be first out the door for creating arguably one of the biggest corporate failures in history (the speed at which Nokia lost assets and fell into a loss making company was staggering). The rest of his family never even left America which strongly implies they knew he was coming back. If that doesn't make it clear that what many people suspect went on isn't just theory then I don't know what would.
So the news is that what many people theorised was the plan all along actually was. Maybe given that many of us theorised it from the outset means we shouldn't be surprised, but I think the shock that we were right, that Microsoft would be so blatant and open about the game they were playing and so utterly lacking in subtlety is shocking. Most of us are in disbelief that we were right, that the biggest and most succesful phone manufacturer on the planet and that had a strong anti-Microsoft culture could be turned round into a Microsoft takeover victim in just a few short years.
Blackberry isn't bankrupt, they still have some useful stuff, they just need to utilise it properly.
If they do go bankrupt it'll be because of management failing to realise their potential, not because they had nothing of value left.
For example, there'd still be massive scope for Blackberry to start releasing Android devices that were secured to a similar standard to their existing phones and to integrate their business tools into it like BIS.
Right now whilst business integration tools have improved for the major smartphone platforms iOS, Android and Windows Phone are still primarily consumer focussed operating systems.
So there'd be a pretty large market for someone with the past experience of Blackberry at satisfying corporate customers to create a purely corporate focussed line of smartphones that are based on iOS, Windows Phone or Android - I suspect Android would be the best bet as it's the easiest option for a third party to customise to the degree needed.
A range of Android handsets with a determined focus on security, business needs, and easy integration to corporate systems would basically hand them the entire business world and they have much of the groundwork in place that they need to do that. They just need management capable of realising it. A good CEO could have this up and running within a year, anything else and then they'll be bankrupt.
Um, part the reason Japan and the US have such large economies is because of those "sheep".
Wolves aren't worth shit if the sheep have fucked off elsewhere (Europe, China) and left them to starve.
All those countries you call sheep have largely very healthy economies whilst Japan and the US are burdened with debt. Japan and the US need this sort of agreement to help their economies grow so that they can service their debts. The "sheep" are just fighting for a growing economy to boost their standards of living, the "wolves" are fighting for their very survival - i.e. avoiding bankruptcy. Guess which is more important?
I replied to you in another post as to why nations keep going to war, even if they're pointless.
But as for why America keeps losing wars, or at least, fails to win them (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan) it's because the American military is far too focussed towards destruction, and simply hopeless at winning hearts and minds operations. This is an endemic problem with the US military and it's one that's constantly growing - from the refusal of US authorities to help investigate friendly fire accidents against their military, to US marines and special force being allowed to get away scott free with rapes and murders of innocents. Until that changes the issue is that for each civilian America kills (because it's too fast on the trigger, and too good at it) they're creating many more enemies. If you accidentally shoot a wife and don't make it right by apologising sincerely, investigating the incident, figuring what went wrong, and putting it right, and punishing the soldier who pulled the trigger if it was a result of incompetence, then you're turning that wife's husband, parents, sons, daughters, and friends against you.
America seems to have lost the "Do not fire until fired upon" doctrine somewhere along the way and this is what separates them from many of their allies, because British soldiers are trained that it's better to take cover and let the militant get away if a militant is holding a woman hostage than to shoot and kill the hostage. No one wants to get shot but getting shot and letting the gunman get away means you've still just got one gunman to deal with. Shooting may kill the gunman and eliminate him from play but if you hit the woman too then you've created 10 more gunmen - her friends and family. Contrast this to a number of US special forces raids where they've literally just go into a house and shot everyone that comes round a corner, civilian, militant, or whatever else.
This is America's problem and why it can't win urban style insurgent engagements. It's gotten too good at training killers, and hopeless at creating warfighters, because fighting a war is about far more than your ability to kill anything that moves and isn't a fellow marine or whatever. Training killers is an absolute war winner if you're steam rolling a nation - such as the initial invasion of Iraq, but a war loser if it's a much more personal engagement where the line between civilian and militant/military is far more blurred.
It's also a real shame because Afghanistan was winnable - they had the support of the people but after going into Iraq Afghanistan lost the focus. Had the resources spent in Iraq been put into Afghanistan they'd have been able to rebuild the nation long before people got fed up and would've had spare personnel to be far more effective at hunting insurgents but by the time they realised they'd done everything they could in Iraq and that it was a mistake the insurgents in Afghanistan had grown in strength and infiltrated every aspect of life there and once that happened it was just like Vietnam all over again, American found itself fighting precisely the type of war it's forces aren't designed for being able to fight.
I'm not really sure going to war has much to do with patriotism unless in a defensive role where you're fighting to protect your nation's ways and identity.
You don't say "Hey let's invade Iraq because Britain is great!" you say "We really need to help those people" or "We really want those cheap oil contracts".
The Falklands is probably the last war that had any ounce of patriotism to it but that was as much about protecting our global influence, as much about protecting access to any resources down there, and as much about doing what was right for the people of the Falklands who are themselves British citizens.
Though there's also an argument that's rather dark and often forgotten. A military that has been to war is much more effective than one that's just been sat on it's arse doing nothing but training back home. The fact is by keeping our military at war we're keeping it one of the best in the world. That means that even if a country has a far bigger military than us then the fact it's not actually been to war in decades means it's going to be ineffective compared to a battle hardened military like ours.
This is something that Germany discovered in Afghanistan, it was only after deployment that it uncovered a massive number of deficiencies in it's military forces in terms of training, tactics and equipment.
So there's an argument that if we want to stay a top 5 military force in the world we need to keep finding wars to fight. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 it should've been an easy fight with so many more troops, so much more equipment, but they got their arses handed to them by the Georgians before they eventually overwhelmed them with numbers and this has led to a lot of lessons being learnt in Russia which have since been rolled out as a massive military modernisation programme. Because the Georgians had been fighting insurgents from Abkhazia and South Ossetia for decades they were simply far more battle hardened compared to the Russians and could put a far bigger dent in Russia's forces relative to their size than vice versa.
"Really? Have you looked at any British paper and how much it focuses on every burp from the Royal Baby?"
That's a global infatuation, if you think the UK press is bad you better not look at the US press - they don't even have our royal family but they're even more obsessed with the royal baby.
"Or the spectacle that was the Queen's birthday party in England?
You know the Queen isn't England right? people may have enjoyed a celebration of her birthday but that doesn't mean they're patriotic about the nation, simply that they respect her as a person (because she's the longest serving, and arguably the most level headed head of state on Earth). She's the queen of many nations well beyond England so if celebrating her is a celebration of patriotism of the nations she represents then I guess I'm patriotic about Australia if I dare celebrate a royal event even though I've never even been there right?
"Or tried making a joke about the prince's resemblance to Mister Ed, the talking mule?"
What? joke away about the royals all you want. No one here gives a shit, even the press do it so I've no idea what the hell you're talking about. But the point still stands, what has the monarchy got to do with patriotism about the nation?
If you want patriotism in the UK the closest you'll find to it is when England is playing football in a major tournament.
But no one here flies the flag, the majority of people don't even know the national anthem, much less have to sing it at school or any such nonsense. We don't really have a national cuisine or any such thing (the closest thing is fish and chips or curry which isn't exactly English), nor do we have any of the jingoistic nonsense that is independence day.
I think you're inadvertently hit the problem - the question is whether they intentionally exploited the vulnerability, or whether the vulnerability failed to stop their code working as intended.
There's a fine line between the two as to blame. If I intentionally search for an exploit in a browser that lets me still their browsing history then that's me being malicious, if however I write some code to gather all data the browser will let me have and then a browser with a bug that bundles the browsing history into that data when it shouldn't hits it and sends me that data, then that's not my fault.
If you were sent a link on Facebook and it led to an HTML dump of all the usernames and passwords then no, you wouldn't be hacking, you wouldn't even be at fault. Similarly if you click a link on Slashdot itself, or clicked back and forward a bit and triggered a bug or whatever and this happened then again, not your fault. Slashdot's fault entirely.
If you were maliciously searching for exploits to exploit and you found one and exploited it intentionally for personal gain then yes.
So in this particular case it depends if Google was intentionally exploiting the bug, or if Google's code was doing what it always did but because Apple fucked up it resulted in unintentional behaviour. It depends if Google implemented code specifically to exploit this bug.
So stop using such simplistic examples that only tell half the story, it reeks of bias.
Given that Sweden is just a US puppet state and Finland is an extremely insular paranoid society then what are you expecting my reaction to be here? surprise? shock?
Or are you using the age old fallacy of "Others do it so it's okay"?
You're overestimating The Daily Mail, they're not that smart, they really do just think that porn is evil because of their strong religious sentiment.
Their chief Paul Dacre genuinely believes it's his job to define the morals of society and to dictate them to the public at large, he has said this in almost those exact words in speeches in the past.
Which all wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hypocritical (but isn't it always?) because whilst they dictate those morals they're acting as arguably the single most unethical media outlet in the UK other than perhaps The Sun.
So join or put a question to the PTA demanding the school answer why on earth it's preventing parents from saving memorable moments of their children's upbringing.
If no one questions it this shit will keep propagating, I'd wager you're not the only parent pissed off about this and given that the school wouldn't exist without the parents and their kids then it needs to be stamped out.
Non-Brits wont be able to help. According to the article I read this morning this is a global thing. Microsoft and Google are going to censor these terms right across the globe.
Actually, I think it's done for no other reason than to shut Claire Perry and The Daily Mail with their "Stop online porn" campaign the fuck up - yes, that's a real thing.
Since she was elected this is the only issue she's focussed on, if I were Dave Cameron I'd be pretty sick of hearing her harp on about things she doesn't understand by now too and would probably do something useless and pointless just to get her off my back.
Not saying it'll work of course, and not defending it, but I can understand why someone would cave in to a multi-year barrage of whining from that silly cow.
Now we just need her to suffer the same fate as Jacqui Smith, the last MP who was as whiny and clueless as Claire Perry - her being caught charging her husband's porn to her expenses. Karma - it's great.
There's a difference between not sinking when struck by an object and being perfectly invulnerable to everything.
These ships are designed to simply stay afloat and remain at least partially operational if struck, not have some kind of magic force field that stops even the paintwork being scratched if struck.
This is the real world, not fantasy land. A 3 ton aircraft crashing into a warship is still going to cause a fair bit of damage. We haven't invented completely invulnerable metal yet.
No, he's making an intelligent point (something you've thus far shown yourself to be incapable of) about how waiting and buying a later revision doesn't magically absolve you of hardware failures.
Case in point, the XBox 360 RROD problem affected new versions upto 2 and a half years after launch and the PS3 yellow light of death affected new consoles over 3 years after launch.
In other words he's pointing out that console hardware is regularly revised, and there's no more likely a chance that your new hardware design at release will be any more defective than your new hardware release 3 years into the cycle.
It's not like there's even much of a disadvantage either because flaws are always fixed for free regardless. In fact, if you bought a newer PS3 then you'd have lost out because you'd not have got backwards compatibility support for example.
So parroting your popular meme about how early adopters deserve what they get is nonsense, if Sony remove features you can find yourself better off buying early. Even if they don't and early hardware has a flaw then you still get it fixed for free, and they still get to enjoy the atmosphere of launch gaming on launch titles, something that's lost over time. Sure you may get lucky, there may only be sucky titles at launch or in the first year, but for me I've had some of my fondest memories playing early games near release on systems and when I have had hardware errors it's not been difficult to just go to my local store and have it swapped out.
Frankly, when you spout the nonsense you have it just makes you sound like a jealous kid that mum and dad wont buy you one or that you simply can't afford one or whatever. Certainly it doesn't make you the superior being you seem to think you are by waiting.
Even if the new hardware is mid-range it's still being packed in a small box which they're also trying to make as quiet as possible. That eliminates the cheap and easy cooling options yet they also want to keep the price low, which eliminates the expensive cooling options, so what compromise did they make?
Problem is, when is it trolling, and when is it not? I owned all the last gen consoles and will probably own all the next gen consoles so can hardly be called a fanboy troll, but I have a lot of criticisms for the PS3 compared to the XBox 360 and in fact, the PS4 product page I was looking at yesterday listed as it's main selling points a bunch of things the XBox 360 had since release like, "download games whilst playing" and that sort of thing.
So given the absence of these sorts of things was a legitimate complaint about the PS3, where do you draw the line between legitimate complaints and outright trolling?
I would determine trolling as the sorts of people still propagating the myths that the XBox One phones home and has mandatory Kinect that the NSA spies on you with - Microsoft have done away with always on internet requirement and have done away with requiring Kinect plugged in. These things were legitimate complaints when they were true, but now they're not are those people perpetuating the myth trolling, or are they just painfully uninformed?
Consider that it's possible that many of the people you think are trolling have legitimate complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is a bit shit, it does touch on the issue but not very well. The $100million wasn't spent just designing the controller, it was spent on pie in the sky research like allowing controllers to emit smell, allowing controllers to project - this wasn't just a case of developing the actual hardware but all the market research that went with that.
I don't think Microsoft can really be faulted to trying something new, isn't that what we always criticise them for here? lacking in innovation? living off of Windows and Office money?
I don't really see what the problem is, even focussing on design it's allowed them to have the nicest controllers especially with the Xbox 360. There's a reason that the Dualshock 4 and Wii U pro controllers make those controllers look much closer to Xbox 360 controllers than they do their predecessors (the grips and such are almost identical now).
We normally give applause to companies that are still trying different things and doing research, I don't understand why just because it's Microsoft it's all "stupid Microsoft", "idiots" and so forth. That's $100 million spent on research, that's exactly what we've been asking companies do - blow money on research in an attempt to innovate, why is this a bad thing? It's better to blow money on research and fail than to just never innovate and always do the same old things. More companies should be doing this - spending their billions on research and innovation.
No worries I know the feeling, I often encounter the problem when writing code, colour vs. colour, center vs. centre. It's worse when I'm thinking up my own variable names - I'm never sure if I should stick to the American spellings so my code is consistent with the APIs or if I should just spell it for UK English so that it makes more sense to my colleagues and such even if it then mismatches the APIs :)
Probably because there was more in it for them personally, they knew they'd make more money in the short term through a sale to Microsoft than playing the long game.
Still shitty for all the staff and for Finland having one of it's largest economic powerhouses effectively asset stripped.
What spelling errors are you on about exactly?
The staggering newsworthy thing in this case is that it was the company with a perceived strong market position that engineered the other company into a struggling position in the first place.
Or in other words, this was one of the most blatant planned corporate sabotages and subsequent buyouts of recent history.
Elop has abysmally failed as a CEO and yet Microsoft are treating him like a hero, even with suggestions he's the frontrunner to run Microsoft itself now. Normally in an acquisition like this he'd be first out the door for creating arguably one of the biggest corporate failures in history (the speed at which Nokia lost assets and fell into a loss making company was staggering). The rest of his family never even left America which strongly implies they knew he was coming back. If that doesn't make it clear that what many people suspect went on isn't just theory then I don't know what would.
So the news is that what many people theorised was the plan all along actually was. Maybe given that many of us theorised it from the outset means we shouldn't be surprised, but I think the shock that we were right, that Microsoft would be so blatant and open about the game they were playing and so utterly lacking in subtlety is shocking. Most of us are in disbelief that we were right, that the biggest and most succesful phone manufacturer on the planet and that had a strong anti-Microsoft culture could be turned round into a Microsoft takeover victim in just a few short years.
Blackberry isn't bankrupt, they still have some useful stuff, they just need to utilise it properly.
If they do go bankrupt it'll be because of management failing to realise their potential, not because they had nothing of value left.
For example, there'd still be massive scope for Blackberry to start releasing Android devices that were secured to a similar standard to their existing phones and to integrate their business tools into it like BIS.
Right now whilst business integration tools have improved for the major smartphone platforms iOS, Android and Windows Phone are still primarily consumer focussed operating systems.
So there'd be a pretty large market for someone with the past experience of Blackberry at satisfying corporate customers to create a purely corporate focussed line of smartphones that are based on iOS, Windows Phone or Android - I suspect Android would be the best bet as it's the easiest option for a third party to customise to the degree needed.
A range of Android handsets with a determined focus on security, business needs, and easy integration to corporate systems would basically hand them the entire business world and they have much of the groundwork in place that they need to do that. They just need management capable of realising it. A good CEO could have this up and running within a year, anything else and then they'll be bankrupt.
"As for the 45 minute dark alley meetings with confidential informants"
It's police talk for "spending 45minutes screwing the local hooker".
Um, part the reason Japan and the US have such large economies is because of those "sheep".
Wolves aren't worth shit if the sheep have fucked off elsewhere (Europe, China) and left them to starve.
All those countries you call sheep have largely very healthy economies whilst Japan and the US are burdened with debt. Japan and the US need this sort of agreement to help their economies grow so that they can service their debts. The "sheep" are just fighting for a growing economy to boost their standards of living, the "wolves" are fighting for their very survival - i.e. avoiding bankruptcy. Guess which is more important?
I replied to you in another post as to why nations keep going to war, even if they're pointless.
But as for why America keeps losing wars, or at least, fails to win them (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan) it's because the American military is far too focussed towards destruction, and simply hopeless at winning hearts and minds operations. This is an endemic problem with the US military and it's one that's constantly growing - from the refusal of US authorities to help investigate friendly fire accidents against their military, to US marines and special force being allowed to get away scott free with rapes and murders of innocents. Until that changes the issue is that for each civilian America kills (because it's too fast on the trigger, and too good at it) they're creating many more enemies. If you accidentally shoot a wife and don't make it right by apologising sincerely, investigating the incident, figuring what went wrong, and putting it right, and punishing the soldier who pulled the trigger if it was a result of incompetence, then you're turning that wife's husband, parents, sons, daughters, and friends against you.
America seems to have lost the "Do not fire until fired upon" doctrine somewhere along the way and this is what separates them from many of their allies, because British soldiers are trained that it's better to take cover and let the militant get away if a militant is holding a woman hostage than to shoot and kill the hostage. No one wants to get shot but getting shot and letting the gunman get away means you've still just got one gunman to deal with. Shooting may kill the gunman and eliminate him from play but if you hit the woman too then you've created 10 more gunmen - her friends and family. Contrast this to a number of US special forces raids where they've literally just go into a house and shot everyone that comes round a corner, civilian, militant, or whatever else.
This is America's problem and why it can't win urban style insurgent engagements. It's gotten too good at training killers, and hopeless at creating warfighters, because fighting a war is about far more than your ability to kill anything that moves and isn't a fellow marine or whatever. Training killers is an absolute war winner if you're steam rolling a nation - such as the initial invasion of Iraq, but a war loser if it's a much more personal engagement where the line between civilian and militant/military is far more blurred.
It's also a real shame because Afghanistan was winnable - they had the support of the people but after going into Iraq Afghanistan lost the focus. Had the resources spent in Iraq been put into Afghanistan they'd have been able to rebuild the nation long before people got fed up and would've had spare personnel to be far more effective at hunting insurgents but by the time they realised they'd done everything they could in Iraq and that it was a mistake the insurgents in Afghanistan had grown in strength and infiltrated every aspect of life there and once that happened it was just like Vietnam all over again, American found itself fighting precisely the type of war it's forces aren't designed for being able to fight.
I'm not really sure going to war has much to do with patriotism unless in a defensive role where you're fighting to protect your nation's ways and identity.
You don't say "Hey let's invade Iraq because Britain is great!" you say "We really need to help those people" or "We really want those cheap oil contracts".
The Falklands is probably the last war that had any ounce of patriotism to it but that was as much about protecting our global influence, as much about protecting access to any resources down there, and as much about doing what was right for the people of the Falklands who are themselves British citizens.
Though there's also an argument that's rather dark and often forgotten. A military that has been to war is much more effective than one that's just been sat on it's arse doing nothing but training back home. The fact is by keeping our military at war we're keeping it one of the best in the world. That means that even if a country has a far bigger military than us then the fact it's not actually been to war in decades means it's going to be ineffective compared to a battle hardened military like ours.
This is something that Germany discovered in Afghanistan, it was only after deployment that it uncovered a massive number of deficiencies in it's military forces in terms of training, tactics and equipment.
So there's an argument that if we want to stay a top 5 military force in the world we need to keep finding wars to fight. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 it should've been an easy fight with so many more troops, so much more equipment, but they got their arses handed to them by the Georgians before they eventually overwhelmed them with numbers and this has led to a lot of lessons being learnt in Russia which have since been rolled out as a massive military modernisation programme. Because the Georgians had been fighting insurgents from Abkhazia and South Ossetia for decades they were simply far more battle hardened compared to the Russians and could put a far bigger dent in Russia's forces relative to their size than vice versa.
"Really? Have you looked at any British paper and how much it focuses on every burp from the Royal Baby?"
That's a global infatuation, if you think the UK press is bad you better not look at the US press - they don't even have our royal family but they're even more obsessed with the royal baby.
"Or the spectacle that was the Queen's birthday party in England?
You know the Queen isn't England right? people may have enjoyed a celebration of her birthday but that doesn't mean they're patriotic about the nation, simply that they respect her as a person (because she's the longest serving, and arguably the most level headed head of state on Earth). She's the queen of many nations well beyond England so if celebrating her is a celebration of patriotism of the nations she represents then I guess I'm patriotic about Australia if I dare celebrate a royal event even though I've never even been there right?
"Or tried making a joke about the prince's resemblance to Mister Ed, the talking mule?"
What? joke away about the royals all you want. No one here gives a shit, even the press do it so I've no idea what the hell you're talking about. But the point still stands, what has the monarchy got to do with patriotism about the nation?
If you want patriotism in the UK the closest you'll find to it is when England is playing football in a major tournament.
But no one here flies the flag, the majority of people don't even know the national anthem, much less have to sing it at school or any such nonsense. We don't really have a national cuisine or any such thing (the closest thing is fish and chips or curry which isn't exactly English), nor do we have any of the jingoistic nonsense that is independence day.
I think you're inadvertently hit the problem - the question is whether they intentionally exploited the vulnerability, or whether the vulnerability failed to stop their code working as intended.
There's a fine line between the two as to blame. If I intentionally search for an exploit in a browser that lets me still their browsing history then that's me being malicious, if however I write some code to gather all data the browser will let me have and then a browser with a bug that bundles the browsing history into that data when it shouldn't hits it and sends me that data, then that's not my fault.
It's not straightforward. Intent matters.
If you were sent a link on Facebook and it led to an HTML dump of all the usernames and passwords then no, you wouldn't be hacking, you wouldn't even be at fault. Similarly if you click a link on Slashdot itself, or clicked back and forward a bit and triggered a bug or whatever and this happened then again, not your fault. Slashdot's fault entirely.
If you were maliciously searching for exploits to exploit and you found one and exploited it intentionally for personal gain then yes.
So in this particular case it depends if Google was intentionally exploiting the bug, or if Google's code was doing what it always did but because Apple fucked up it resulted in unintentional behaviour. It depends if Google implemented code specifically to exploit this bug.
So stop using such simplistic examples that only tell half the story, it reeks of bias.
Given that Sweden is just a US puppet state and Finland is an extremely insular paranoid society then what are you expecting my reaction to be here? surprise? shock?
Or are you using the age old fallacy of "Others do it so it's okay"?
You're overestimating The Daily Mail, they're not that smart, they really do just think that porn is evil because of their strong religious sentiment.
Their chief Paul Dacre genuinely believes it's his job to define the morals of society and to dictate them to the public at large, he has said this in almost those exact words in speeches in the past.
Which all wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hypocritical (but isn't it always?) because whilst they dictate those morals they're acting as arguably the single most unethical media outlet in the UK other than perhaps The Sun.
But only countries like Russia and China spy on people and hack. American agencies would never ever do that.
So join or put a question to the PTA demanding the school answer why on earth it's preventing parents from saving memorable moments of their children's upbringing.
If no one questions it this shit will keep propagating, I'd wager you're not the only parent pissed off about this and given that the school wouldn't exist without the parents and their kids then it needs to be stamped out.
Non-Brits wont be able to help. According to the article I read this morning this is a global thing. Microsoft and Google are going to censor these terms right across the globe.
Actually, I think it's done for no other reason than to shut Claire Perry and The Daily Mail with their "Stop online porn" campaign the fuck up - yes, that's a real thing.
Since she was elected this is the only issue she's focussed on, if I were Dave Cameron I'd be pretty sick of hearing her harp on about things she doesn't understand by now too and would probably do something useless and pointless just to get her off my back.
Not saying it'll work of course, and not defending it, but I can understand why someone would cave in to a multi-year barrage of whining from that silly cow.
Now we just need her to suffer the same fate as Jacqui Smith, the last MP who was as whiny and clueless as Claire Perry - her being caught charging her husband's porn to her expenses. Karma - it's great.
There's a difference between not sinking when struck by an object and being perfectly invulnerable to everything.
These ships are designed to simply stay afloat and remain at least partially operational if struck, not have some kind of magic force field that stops even the paintwork being scratched if struck.
This is the real world, not fantasy land. A 3 ton aircraft crashing into a warship is still going to cause a fair bit of damage. We haven't invented completely invulnerable metal yet.
But what if you don't have a sense of humour like the GP? then what is the difference?
No, he's making an intelligent point (something you've thus far shown yourself to be incapable of) about how waiting and buying a later revision doesn't magically absolve you of hardware failures.
Case in point, the XBox 360 RROD problem affected new versions upto 2 and a half years after launch and the PS3 yellow light of death affected new consoles over 3 years after launch.
In other words he's pointing out that console hardware is regularly revised, and there's no more likely a chance that your new hardware design at release will be any more defective than your new hardware release 3 years into the cycle.
It's not like there's even much of a disadvantage either because flaws are always fixed for free regardless. In fact, if you bought a newer PS3 then you'd have lost out because you'd not have got backwards compatibility support for example.
So parroting your popular meme about how early adopters deserve what they get is nonsense, if Sony remove features you can find yourself better off buying early. Even if they don't and early hardware has a flaw then you still get it fixed for free, and they still get to enjoy the atmosphere of launch gaming on launch titles, something that's lost over time. Sure you may get lucky, there may only be sucky titles at launch or in the first year, but for me I've had some of my fondest memories playing early games near release on systems and when I have had hardware errors it's not been difficult to just go to my local store and have it swapped out.
Frankly, when you spout the nonsense you have it just makes you sound like a jealous kid that mum and dad wont buy you one or that you simply can't afford one or whatever. Certainly it doesn't make you the superior being you seem to think you are by waiting.
Intrigued though, I have a launch Wii and what if I discover the flaw now only what, 7 years after release? Will I still get a free repair?
Even if the new hardware is mid-range it's still being packed in a small box which they're also trying to make as quiet as possible. That eliminates the cheap and easy cooling options yet they also want to keep the price low, which eliminates the expensive cooling options, so what compromise did they make?
Problem is, when is it trolling, and when is it not? I owned all the last gen consoles and will probably own all the next gen consoles so can hardly be called a fanboy troll, but I have a lot of criticisms for the PS3 compared to the XBox 360 and in fact, the PS4 product page I was looking at yesterday listed as it's main selling points a bunch of things the XBox 360 had since release like, "download games whilst playing" and that sort of thing.
So given the absence of these sorts of things was a legitimate complaint about the PS3, where do you draw the line between legitimate complaints and outright trolling?
I would determine trolling as the sorts of people still propagating the myths that the XBox One phones home and has mandatory Kinect that the NSA spies on you with - Microsoft have done away with always on internet requirement and have done away with requiring Kinect plugged in. These things were legitimate complaints when they were true, but now they're not are those people perpetuating the myth trolling, or are they just painfully uninformed?
Consider that it's possible that many of the people you think are trolling have legitimate complaints.