That's like saying you can avoid junk mail by simply not having a mail box. Someone is taking advantage of something you installed for your own convenience, wasting your resources. What about people who are on metered connections, can they claim any fees back from Apple for the tens of megabytes of spam forced on them?

We have known for a long time that the war won't be won by convincing governments to behave and hold those responsible accountable. We have to fix the internet by making it secure and mass surveillance too expensive or impractical. As long as engineers pay attention there is still hope.

What worries me is that Der Spiegel contacted the victims and they said they couldn't find any problems. Maybe GCHQ/NSA backed off, knowing they were likely to be discovered now. Maybe they just couldn't find the bugged hardware. Maybe they were told to deny it by the spies or their PR departments. Only one of those three possibilities offers much hope.

Mozilla have not paid enough attention to the things that make Firefox unique. The add-on API has been neglected and many useful ones no longer work and the authors have no intention of updating them. Why don't Mozilla adopt and fix the popular ones? Why not clean up and improve the APIs to offer a bit of security?

Unique features like tab groups have been abandoned, and I think that particular one is slated to go away at some point. They say no-one uses it but that's because no-one knows it's there. Performance sucks too and it hasn't improved like everything else.

There are no compelling reasons to use Firefox any more, except for a few unusual cases like Tor and obscure add-ons.

This is an interesting development because it shows that 3D printed parts are viable for use in a car. They have come a long way already from the early days of low quality and high fragility.

Eventually it's inevitable that you will be able to print a large part of a car. Printers will improve and use more materials, and companies will offer chassis with the motors and battery pack fitted ready for a custom body. Lawsuits will start to fly over copyright infringement. In fact, I saw on TV that one Japanese manufacturer (Mazda I think) makes a Japan only model with replaceable body panels already.

Eventually someone will invent a replicator and then the price of a Ferrari will drop to near zero because everyone has one.

If I find a new dent when returning to my car I usually just put a note on the windscreen of the car next to me with my contact details and a brief explanation that it appears they damaged my car. I ask that they contract me within a few days to get it fixed, or I can go through their insurance (you can look up any vehicles insurance details for free on the MID database in the UK). It's about 50/50 if they just offer some cash or deny it, and in the latter case I just let it go if the damage is minor. If the dent is big I offer to get CCTV images from the car park company.

I wish someone would invent a CCTV system for cars that was low power enough to run while parked. It would only need to record when an accelerometer detects that the car was bumped.

It really depends how the glass hits the surface. A flat floor will probably be okay. An edge or uneven surface can concentrate the force in one area and shatter the screen.

LG makes a phone with a concave screen, or you can buy a minimal case that has ridges at the side to prevent the glass hitting the ground directly.

In plain English the surface of glass is not perfect, there are invisible gaps and fractures. Normally when glass bends these points fail as the gaps are expanded and pulled open on the side that is stretched. Gorilla Glass has those gaps stuffed which puts the whole surface under pressure. When it bends it's now just relaxing instead of splitting.

Have you applied to be removed? It's a long and slow process but if you keep nagging they will eventually remove your details.

Kids being kids one of them will shove his finger up his arse before touching it. I don't think a bit of anti-bacterial effect is going to cut it.

Wrong statistic. This doesn't prevent accidental shootings, it prevents unauthorised use.

It seems like this would be a good thing for the police to have. Since it isn't the Wild West any more they don't get into many quick-draw standoffs but do get people trying to take their weapons. Sometimes they use it as an excuse, sometimes it's real. In any case tech that renders the gun inert in anyone else's hands would fix both problems with minimal disadvantages.

I just come back to "probable cause". Any search without a warrant is bad, and to get that warrant you should need to show that more than half of those you search have the specified contraband. That's what "probable" means, after all.

Bayesian reasoning tells us that's a remarkably high bar to clear based on any sort of profile, but it's technically possible. If, say, you have good evidence that more than half of those who visited Silk Road have illegal drugs in their house right now, then, OK, that's a legit reason to search the houses of everyone who did.

But most profiling and broad searches are closer to 0.05% than to 50%. Search all the computers in the state and find one guilty? What percentage is that? Stop 1000 people at a sobriety checkpoint for every drunk you find? Well, that's a bit less than half, now, isn't it. Search people who fit a profile because they have a one in a million, instead of 1 in 100 million chance of being a terrorist? "They're 100 times as likely if they fit!" Yeah, well, 1 in a million is less than 1 in 2, so keep working on that profile buddy.

Probable cause. It's a simple concept.

Well, if civilian rules of evidence were in play, the evidence should still be thrown out - an overbroad search is an overbroad search. Even though might have found the same evidence with a narrow search, you didn't. But then, I have no clue what the rules of evidence are for the UCMJ, and it's a different world than civilian law. (And of course in the civilian world, they'd just use parallel construction to falsify the origin of the evidence.)

Everyone but you is construing your post to mean that the government investigators was OK to exceed his authority because child molesters are scum. When you call enough people idiots for misunderstanding you, you should start to think that you were perhaps unclear.

Or as the old saying goes "if everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror".

You should be asking what are the chances of it failing verses the chances of someone taking my gun and using it against me. It might be more of an issue for cops than for people at risk of home invasion.

There is also the issue of someone else taking your gun without your permission. Maybe you lock it up securely, but quite a few gun crimes are committed with weapons owned by family members. Better hide that key well, assuming you care and are not only interested in your own well being.

In case you want references, 1 second with Google turned up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...