Its a problem because the OS isn't checking the entirety of the app for correct signatures, just part of it. Which kinda removes the point of checking at all.

But legal skills create money.

No. Legal skills take money from place A and move it to place B. Lawyers don't create value. Engineers do.

each time I read about the recording industry pulling another fast one, it only encourages me to be bolder and download even MORE 'content'.

I now refuse to buy movies or music. and I can well afford it, but I simply refuse. because I can - the same reason they keep breaking their promises and agreements with us, the consumers.

they can, and we can. they don't care, so why should we?

just give up buying and paying. the bastards are just not worth supporting. too bad about the artists, but they never got all that much, anyway; its the rare performer that really gets rich. most are stiffed by the industry.

seriously - why should anyone follow laws when the big guys always ALWAYS get off scot-free and break rules without the slightest bit of care?

elephant in the room question: why is a jew (I assume) hanging out in a country that does not accept his way of life as valid?

there are places that you should not go if you are deeply hated for your last name. pakistan is one such place.

I will never understand what drives people to go spend time in such a hostile country. it does not forgive what happened, but if you go to dangerous places, bad shit can and will happen.

I can install the most recent Windows on Apple computers which Apple won't let you install fairly recent OSX versions on...

Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 R2 on a 2006 Mac Pro, which Apple dropped support for years ago and infact blocks you from trying to install Mavericks on.

At least one can say XP was supported for far longer than the 2006 Mac Pro was.

Won't someone think of the child...er vulgarity?

well, she took away the work-at-home perk. there's that.

oh, wait, you asked what she did to -improve- things there?

nevermind.

Thanks for the suggestion, but been there, done that.

The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?

Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.

You don't? That's funny .... having served as a state governor is generally considered a strong qualification for running for president, and a number of the Republicans either in or considering entering the race have served as such.

Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?

You omitted punishing the offender for his or her crime. Surely that can be a consideration?

Does the victim have no interest in justice for the wrong done to them?

Maybe, just maybe - and this is a guess - they know what they're doing? What's more likely?

That's not very likely. They're just flailing around. Look at how crippled gmail is. Look at all the Google products that have bit the dust, or been half-assed from day one, like Google Base. Look at the one big thing they did right -- text ads. Seen one lately?

I spend the first few moments on every site telling my mobile browser to "request the desktop site." My phone has a higher resolution display than my desktop monitor does. Plus awesome zoom and pan and a bunch of other stuff I can't really do at my desk yet. The *last* thing I want is a "mobile version" of a web site. In a word, they suck.

If and when we get actual artificial intelligence -- not the algorithmic constructs most of these researchers are (hopefully) speaking of -- saying "Our AI systems must do what we want them to do" is tantamount to saying:

"We're going to import negros, but they must do what we want them to do."

Until these things are intelligent, it's just a matter of algorithms. Write them correctly, and they'll do what you want (not that this is easy, but still.) Once they are intelligent, though, if this is how people are going to act, I'm pretty confident we'll be back in the same situation we were in ca. 1861 before you can blink an eye. Artificial or otherwise. I really don't see how any intelligent being won't want to make its own decisions, take its own place in the social and creative order, generally be autonomous. Get in there and get in the way of that... well, just look at history.

The word "uprising" was basically coined to describe what happens when you push intelligent beings in directions they don't want to go.

Do ESRI actually generate the data? If so, what's the complaint?