Aww! So cute! Size has nothing to do with it - Europe is larger than the US, contains more people, and contains many places with a far greater quality of life. Hint: money is no measure of quality of life. You'd know that if you read.

Keep telling yourself that and see just how long your decrepit infrastructure lasts. Every single country has legacy systems, so clearly that is not an excuse. That only makes sense if you truly believe the US is some wonderland of technology the rest of the world has only recently adopted, which is such an absurd notion it defies belief someone can actually hold it in the 21st century, when information which dispels said notion in seconds is available at the click of a mouse button.

You're not special.

That problem is in your head. The rest of us folks simply understand that they're describing the method.

It is costing them resources to serve up content you obviously want to see (hence you being there in the first place), yet you can't see that? I think the problem here lies more in your brain than in the advertising of the sites you visit. If the advertising offends you so much, don't visit their site. That simple.

Don't try bringing logic to this party. He wants the content he values for free, and doesn't care that his attitude (if extended to everyone else) will cause that content to simply disappear, or become so diluted it won't be worth reading. He simply doesn't get that. No amount of eloquence can convince him of his rampant, selfish asshattery.

And HOSTS files can't block inlined advertising (of which your spamvertising posts are a great example), whereas adblockers can do that effortlessly.

Go get some help. You need it. I await your replies where you pretend to be a whole different bunch of people all agreeing that I'm some sort of messed up lunatic. Maybe you'll link to some of my comments and you and your made-up friends will judge me on them? I can't wait!

You seem awfully confused. A monarchy might be constitutional (as in the UK now), or a dictatorship (as was in the UK ages ago). A republic might be a dictatorship, or it might be a democracy. Using "republic" to talk about a system of government is pointless, as it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The UK, for example, is a monarchy, yet the power comes from the people - the Queen is merely a figurehead, and can make no laws. The British police seem to be doing a far better job of protecting the people than the US's police do, so your argument seems entirely false, and based on nothing but wishful thinking and ignorance.

If you want to bang on about things and use these words, it might help to know what they actually mean, so you don't look really foolish in the process.

The vast majority of the cameras in the UK are privately-owned, and governed by strict data protection laws. Just saying.

Just ask Chareth Cutestory. He studied maritime law for years.

You're a crook, Captain Hook. Judge, won't you throw the book at the pirate.

The truth is that many firms simply don't have the staff and budget needed to support an internal SOC. They also don't have the budget for an MSSP. With that, Mike Rothman of Securosis noted that these firms are "trapped on the hamster wheel of pain, reacting without sufficient visibility, but without time to invest in gaining that much-needed visibility into threats without diving deep into raw log files".

In my experience it is not the budget but the politics.

Is your company's security worth the expense of an additional tech? Or are office politics the reason you cannot get an additional tech?

Does whomever is in charge of your technology have the authority to say "no" to requests from other departments? And the political capital to make it stick?

I've seen too many examples of companies "suffering" from the problems their own decisions/environment created.

Retrofitting security is not the answer.

It's not the viewing of the picture which is offensive, but the making of the picture. Distributing it is rubbing salt in the wounds, and makes the difference between a secret, private image of Muhammad (which were quite common in Islam), and a public spectacle. The secret, private images were tolerated because the owners would know that the image was not being worshipped or being used to degrade Muhammad. When it's public and all over the place, that security is lost.

It's just a respect thing - when a religion has been pushed into the corner by the meddling of other countries, often with no regard to their sensibilities, they will fight tooth and nail to secure that which is the most important thing to them. We've seen this with other religions and cultures, too, so it's not just an Islam thing.

If someone respects the hell out of something I'll not go out of my way to show how free I am to disrespect it, or show how much I dislike people being offended by disrespect, by disrespecting it - "told you so" is not productive. That's just me, though.

There you go again - any opportunity for you to throw in some casual xenophobia in a completely unrelated article, and you jump at the chance, showing us just how scared and little you are.

Your intelligence is about as high as your morals.

No. He came out in support of a universal maxim and then went back to his board who showed him X dollars of income they get by operating in Turkey. Just like the revenue lost when Google left mainland China. Instead of sacrificing that revenue to some other social network in Turkey run by cowards, he became a coward himself in the name of money. It is an affront to the deaths and memory of the Charlie Hebdo editors. His refusal could have worked as leverage for social change in Turkey but now it will not.

So no, your statement isn't fair to Zuckerberg and his company and the platinum backscratcher he gets to keep with "TURKEY" inscribed on it. Fuck that greedy bastard and his petty meaningless lip service.

The Skylon project is aiming to reduce the price to ~$1000 per kilo (to begin with), and then further reduce that through the life of the project. They've made some amazing progress, and they don't need to use nuclear fuel (just hydrogen), which means there's less for anyone to complain about. Couple that with being entirely reusable (and possibly capable of flying a second mission within 2 days), and it looks simply genius.

Some work exceptionally well. You'd know that if you'd bother to actually read the real research, instead of simply plugging your brain into a site whose attitude gels with your own, and letting them think for you.