It all comes down to proper design and the ability to say "NO".

Security cannot be retro-fitted to a badly designed system.

The person who can demand that you support X in Y configuration NO MATTER WHAT is the person who controls your security. No matter what his/her knowledge level is.

Next, understand that you will (eventually) be cracked. Someone somewhere will make some mistake just long enough. MONITOR for that. KNOW what the regular traffic on your network looks like. PLAN for what you are going to do WHEN that happens.

Do you purchase their products? Will you in the future? Will you be recommending their products to any people or businesses that you know? Will you be praising or condemning them in venues like this?

What penalty did you have mind beyond them losing sales?

Should we criminalize imperfect software? Let's see some of your code.

Imprisonment is irreversible as well - you can't get your time back.

Do the math - bottled water doesn't even move the dial compared to agriculture. Total US consumption of bottle water per year = 10 billion gallons or about 31,000 acre feet. An acre-foot is about what one household uses per year, so it's the equivalent of a small city. In contrast, California uses 38 billion gallons a DAY. Stopping bottled water will not solve the water crisis. Alfalfa would certainly have a bigger impact.

http://www.latimes.com/busines...

How does heat affect the orbit?
if you break space junk up it continues on the same orbit.

And radiative momentum transfer can't exceed the momentum of the photons hitting it which won't be a lot or you'd also be pushing on the space station too.

try to imagine the internet without any reliable search engines and no paywalls. In this model all the information is free and out there and is either completely unusable or impossible to locate and no chance of a concensus on what information is the highest value.

If there is no added value why do people pay then? They could put their work up on Xarchiv or just post it on their own web site or submit it to many other journals. When it comes to other journals the model is either author pays or reader pays. Elsevier is reader pays. so called open content journals are author pays. There's even hybrid journals where if the author doesn't pay the reader must. For most journals there usually is also a page charge to the author no matter what.

Yet this people willingly submit their work to journals of both stripes.

The cost is what prevents a tragedy of the commons. Journals who have good names are desirable to be published in and also desirable to peer review for. This becomes a virtuous circle and tends in the long run to promote the best work worth my time to read. That's what I want. there's too much to read. I want some filter on the process. Some level of curation.

When publishing houses can enforce that with either model then cost of that is negligible compared to the resulting value.

Why is a paywall bad? I think it is a good thing for companies to provide services of value and get rewarded for it. I'm sad to see traditional publishers who pay for reporters and columnists be undermined by aggregators that leach content and don't do much. The problem is that google news drives what traffic these sites still get and they limp on that and the ad revenues it brings in, but the aggregators profit hansomely without incurring the costs of creating the content.

I'm happy to see that the Wall street journal bucked this trend and managed to find customers for it's pay wall and I'm sad the Ny times isn't succeeding as well.

I don't begrudge people their paywalls.

It's a long distance from things like internet.org and the alternative walled gardens of the internet with unreachable content that breaks the internet.

More competition and plummeting ad revenue.

Death by nitrogen is the ideal way to die. It's so effective it's one of the dangers in nitrogen inerted buildings. You don't know you are dieing you just pass out. SOmeone comes along sees you down in the room and tries to rescue you and bang they keel over too. It's the classic farmer manure pit death.

the key here is that your urgent need to breath oddly enough is not triggered by lack of oxygen but by build up of CO2. when you remove the O2 from your air then you don't notice it because your alarm system isn't triggered. You are still getting rid of the CO2 in your blood.

Why nature rigged it like that I have no idea but it is easy to see that under almost any normal condition the two are linked making having separate sensors of O2 and CO2 not needed so why evolve one.

You weren't breathing pure helium. You were breathing "balloon gas," which is a mixture of helium and normal, breathable room air. The oxygen in the mixture was keeping you conscious.

Helium is an expensive substance and you don't need pure helium in a balloon to give it lift. By cutting the helium with air, the balloon outfit is able to make their expensive resource last much longer.

is why it is turned off

if the question were "why should a phone add all this expensive hardware for negligible benefit" then the answer should obviously screw FM radio

but if the functionality is already there, why isn't anyone angry that you are being denied something for free simply so your phone carrier can squeeze more cash out of you?

i look at the other posts here and their priorities and their rationale, and i can't understand why this thought doesn't rank higher

and while we're at it, get us a tv tuner too, like in japan:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Androi...

why aren't television and fm radio industries banding together to demand inclusion on smartphones? nevermind as a safety feature, you can make arguments for that, but even if you think that's a contrived concern, do it simply because it's a fucking industry of content, that you can get FOR FREE

Or, they're trying to make a viable business out of operating mammoth server farms so you can get stuff you don't have to pay for.

so, indeed, you're affirming the insult

you're telling me you see no distinction between science and business

why are there so many fucking morons in this world?

are you against music because people can copyright songs?

that's exactly as stupid as what you just wrote

there is science

then there are corporations

you do understand those are different topics, right?

because the ignorance you just wrote suggests otherwise