Oh, you use
Why, so they can buy some shitty off-brand memory with an ass warranty?
I have yet to hear George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell or George Tenet weigh in on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Or did you mean someone else?
SNIP
Because Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande are not exactly the first people I think of when I hear the term "neo-con."
C'mon. Victoria Neuland, dummy. Appointed under Hillary. You don't think of Hillary as a "neo-con" - but there she is! Appointing the Wife of Robert Kagan and former foreign policy advisor of... Dick Cheney! To the role of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs.
Or you don't remember her little phone call? "Fuck the EU!"
Neo-con rim job. You don't see it, because the distortion field that Cheney described is in full-effect. You believe that an evil, Russian potentate wants to slowly steal your freedoms - not that a gang of pirates took over the former Russian state of Ukraine - using actual NAZIS to do it.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
The original capital of the Rus, in the foundation of the state around 100 AD, was Kiev. No entity "Ukraine" existed. I figure even IF the Russians were agressive, they have a better claim on that land than the so-called Hebrews do on Palestine.
Islam requires non-Muslims to convert or pay tax
Non-Muslims have to pay tax (jizya). Muslims have to pay tax too; it just goes by a different name (zakat). Which non-failed state doesn't enforce laws against tax evasion?
Definitely not true. Backwards, in fact. POP defaults to removing messages from the server and must be explicitly configured to leave the messages on the server. IMAP leaves them on the server by default, and IIRC, most IMAP clients don't even provide the option of removing messages from the server until you delete them.
Dead animals and a cave wall.
It's not just to fuck with darkies and commies any more.
All another company has to do is make distribution deals with all the major publishers
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant from the perspective of a publisher seeking to distribute its own works.
get people to give up their e-ink readers
How closely are e-ink readers coupled to their respective stores? Can they not read epub or mobi format?
and make apps for every major platform
Which major platform doesn't already have a reader for epub or mobi format?
I believe the article is saying that you don't just blindly allow the use of URLs without verifying that the caller is within an authenticated session. This has nothing to do with changing passwords.
A newly installed web application has to create a first authenticated session that lets the founder set his own password (or set his own e-mail address in order to recover his password) and grant himself founder privileges. The URL of this first session is effectively a password (or more properly a substitute for a password), though I'll grant that it should be disabled through other means most of the time.
But if you don't want any app to do anything, why do you have a device capable of running apps?
I see at least two problems.
The first is that Android's permissions are far too coarse-grained. SD card permissions don't have separate settings for "read and write the app's own folder and folders explicitly chosen by the user" and "read and write the whole damn thing". Internet permissions don't have separate settings for "communicate only with a specific set of hostnames" and "communicate with everything". Phone state permissions don't have separate settings for "read whether the phone is ringing as a cue to pause the game or video and save the user's work immediately" and "read the identity of the cellular subscriber whose SIM is in this device".
The other problem is that unlike (say) Bitfrost in OLPC Sugar, Android's model isn't designed for users to be able to turn permissions on and off. A user must either grant all privileges that an application requests or not install the application at all. For example, a keyboard app might be able to read the user's location and contacts, ostensibly for adding nearby landmarks and friends' names to the autocorrect. But a privacy-conscious user has no technical means of preventing the application from misusing those permissions. Android 4.3 experimented with "App Ops", an app on Google Play Store to disable individual permissions of individual applications, but Google did away with that in Android 4.4 because it caused too many applications to crash on an uncaught SecurityException.
Those users who are "too sophisticated" may need to write their own software
Until the device blocks sophisticated users from running their own software. This is where the walled garden concept comes in.
Or it could be correctly interpreted as "use digital signatures to verify senders and that the message has not been tampered with."
I understand how you might see a non sequitur, so let me connect the dots. Verifying a sender is only authentication. According to the article, authentication should always be followed by authorization, a decision as to whether or not the system should trust software from a particular sender. A platform owner could play up its strong authentication and gloss over the inflexible authorization policy that follows it. And "inflexible authorization policy" is another word for a walled garden.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.