$10,000 barely gets you ONE modern well-equipped 20 core server system (I am thinking in particular of the Dell R820/R920 platforms) so no, while you could probably heap together 100 or so ARM cores for $10/core and get something to run on it, a supercomputer it is not.

Your average [either party] voter is already mined and targeted at _every_ election, whether they know/like it or not. And somehow there hasn't been a revolt. The difference in this particular effort is really just the story's presence on Slashdot.

Ah but the assertion was not about ISPs at all, was it? Try reading.

FTFY.

To that end, "good faith" doesn't have a history in patent law; he could take anyone who was using the patents to seriously compete or encroach on Tesla's existing market share as lacking it, and there would be no recourse.

Rather, aside from maintaining competitive positioning, they are probably looking for anything novel that hasn't been patented yet, so they can copy it (and perhaps patent it themselves). Not every invention is patented or even patent worthy but it still could be valuable.

Even better! Really if that's true then the VAR was clearly given too much trust in who it decides to sell pre-release products to. They should go to established customers with a good history of cooperation, not just anyone who asks. All I can say about this story is "and I bet Juniper is doing the same thing".

That's an assertion so dubious it's hard to know where to start. I suppose that it would be fair for lawmakers to mandate a lie detector feature in your car when you are driving for Uber, to ascertain if you are really driving of your own direct will, or acting based on the guy in the back seat who just agreed to pay you by the minute.

ACM seems like a reputable publication so I was going in to it thinking I was about to read some interesting stuff, and then this happened:

lolwut. The time of day was not exploited, not even a little. The boneheaded "Feature" of having a command to recall a large chunk of data via unauthenticated UDP was exploited. They go on to explain a basic denial of service attack and finish it off by misusing a term as basic as TCP/IP (it doesn't matter what protocol you are using when you are the target of a DDOS, your pipe is blocked period). I will go ahead and stop reading now.

You are _still_ missing the point. This has nothing to do with user behavior. The apps are being designed, by the software developers, to touch fewer pieces of "sensitive data". Presumably (though there is no hard evidence to support it) this is done because developers prefer to have a cleaner permissions sheet, since in Android it is seen by every user at install time. So given two equally oblivious users, one with an iOS device and one with an Android device, if they fire up the same app the Android user is less likely to leak sensitive information in some way because the app itself is better behaved. Of course there are plenty of other vectors for it to happen (on both platforms) but in the context of the study in question, this is a data-supported fact.

A fair compromise would be an understanding that if there is a fire, the firefighters can run the hose *over* your car to get where they need to be. Seriously, have you seen a 6" fire hose in use? It's not like they get a real choice in which direction it goes: under pressure you can't make cute little S turns to get around vehicles, you lay it as straight as possible from the hydrant to the fire.

Next, if you have picked a spot to park that isn't explicitly allowed (via a meter) scan up and down the street for any signs with arrows on them. They probably contain fine print about specific parking restrictions (standing but no parking, no stopping certain times/days, etc) and then look for "permit parking only" or better yet eye any other cars for identical hanging tags or stickers to see if you have found yourself in a permit area. Yes, inner city parking (in just about every city of any appreciable size) is such a nightmare that it's really no wonder anyone with a little bit of money flees to the suburbs.

If the valve is not on OR under the hydrant, but under a main shutoff cover (as described) then the issue of hitting the hydrant is nonexistent; you can rip it clean out of the ground if you want and water will still not come out unless you rip out the main shutoff too.

It's not a question of the hookup being completely inaccessible, it's a question of it being accessible enough to quickly service both sides of the street (as hydrants are generally only installed on one side). So, no parking next to them, and firefighters have a decent chance at getting hoses hooked to pump trucks or run across the street to fight a fire.

Except, the article he quoted said nothing of putting an actual security requirement on the user. Instead, the mere notion that the app will present all of its permissions at install time seems to be pushing the developers to limit what they ask for in the first place. Security by design is a Good Thing. Cyanogenmod, for those who really want to bite off a big piece of the pie, is an entirely different conversation.