I've set a different WPA2 passphrase for every MAC-address that's allowed to connect. So unless you start MAC spoofing, knowing the passphrase won't help.

stop_stealing_my_shit_kents_optout_nomap

ERROR: SSID TOO LONG

You did know SSIDs were limited to 32 characters, didn't you?

...when you connect to a new network, there's a "share with my contacts" checkbox that you have to turn ON for this network to be shared.

If true, this would be a departure from the Windows Phone 8.1 OEM requirements, which requires OEMs to fully enable this, "killer feature:" https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

First, we're only talking Windows 10 PHONE

ERROR: INCORRECT

First: This is in Windows 10 desktop, as detailed here, complete with screenshots: http://www.howtogeek.com/21970...

Second: Even if this were only confined to Windows Phone 10, it would still be monumentally stupid.

ERROR: INCOMPLETE SOLUTION

There is no provision in this "killer feature" that establishes whether the person doing the sharing is the network administrator, i.e. the person who grants authorization to use their network. So if you share your WAP credentials with a friend, and that friend uses Windows 10 with Wi-Fi Sense enabled, than that friend has just compromised your WAP.

ahhhh no, for networks you have SELECTED to share it can do it. [ ... ]

ERROR: MISLEADING.

Wi-Fi Sense's default settings are to share everything, all the time. Indeed, Microsoft's rules for shipping Windows Phone 8.1 requires OEMs to turn this "killer feature" fully on. Expecting users to have the presence of mind to turn this off is willfully disingenuous.

It's simple. As long as a significant portion of Apple's revenue comes from having a closed, "walled-garden" ecosystem, Apple will be disinclined to participate anything that might result in the demise of that ecosystem. After all, it's hard to be in the same boat as everyone else supporting WebAssembly etc., when that same technology will ultimately result in the death of on-platform app stores.

Apple's walled garden and iTunes revenue pales in comparison to their iPod revenue, which has been declining for 10 years straight. (It's roughly on order of a billion dollars). Just to compare, Macs account for several tens of billions of dollars. And iPhones/iPads account for hundred billion.

Apple's take from iTunes is small and not essential. Unlike Amazon whose business model IS to sell content, Apple's model is to provide content, to sell hardware.

Oh yeah, iTunes content sales include music and movies as well. (Apple does not break it out any finer grained than that).

Anything Apple does is to sell hardware - that's their main revenue generator. Everything else is just icing. Especially to encourage sales of new hardware.

Safari upgrades don't sell hardware.

You know, I think since this court case, eBook prices have actually gone up. I mean, when we actually had Amazon, Barnes and Noble and iBookstore competing, you could get books for $10. Now that iBookstore was colluding and banished as a competitor, damn has prices risen.

Yeah, Apple sucks, blah blah blah, but now we have less competition and Amazon's dictating the pricing rules. I don't think the ebook market is as healthy as it was back then, nor as competitive... especially now with Barnes and Noble on life-support, iBookstore gone, it's just Amazon...

Not only that, but no artificial limit to g. No pilot to keep conscious.

Easier to scrap the airframe and design for a drone, actually. Because too much has been done already in the design to support a pilot.

If you're not having a pilot, there's a TON of equipment that can be gotten rid of because you don't need life support equipment, all the cockpit gear, even the canopy can go.

And with all the extra space you make, you can fit more armament and all that in there.

I asked this because I do not accumulate those in a business setting. In our office we have the printer service companies (who beat each other up to get our business) deal with that, but they do not do private households and I am not bold enough to just dump my empty cartridges on the pile. I am sure they'd catch on to that quickly because we only have HP at work.

They probably will accept them.

They don't do private households in that they won't do business with you. They are often more than happy to take empty toner cartridges for recycling (really, refilling). And the worst that happens is they leave it in the area, so check it after they're through. Hell, if you're scared, ask IT if you can leave your toner carts for them.

If not, I'm sure there's a walmart or other place with a ink/toner refill business. They'll be more than happy to accept empty cartridges that they send back and refill and sell in the store.

Hell, the online retailer you buy from probably has a buy back program.

This is also a trademark law maneuver.They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.

Except the domain was registered BEFORE the trademark.

That's the key point - if the domain was registered AFTER the trademark, then yes, trademark law is clear on that. But in this case, the trademark was created long after the domain was registered.

So it's no longer a simple "defending a trademark" procedure, as otherwise it opens up a whole legal way to expropriate property. Don't like a domain? File a trademark and if successful, sue to get the domain, doesn't matter who got it first or whatever.

It's similar to the case where the guy got his YouTube URL taken away just because someone with money wanted it. Or Nissan.com - the original owner had the store way before the car company renamed themselves.

Trademarks need to be defended, however, defense implies preventing people from diluting it. It doesn't cover the case where someone else already uses the name prior to your filing. (And there are many trademarks that are similar - as long as their trade areas don't overlap, that's fine.)

((Asked then answered: it is bloody hard considering the physics of the game means that any given offrails object is under precisely one sphere of influence at any given moment, which means that until the SOI changes (from the Sun to Kerbin, for instance) you know where the rock is and where it's going - but the second the SOI changes, all those napkin calculations you just did for an unguided nuke shot just went right out of the window))

Well, the math gets really hairy otherwise once you have more than two bodies to consider.

Newton's gravitational formula is only specified for two objects. If you have more gravitational bodies, the math turns into a really nasty set of differential equations which practically speaking can only be solved numerically.

So depending on the simulation, either they'd try to do it numerically (which imposes resolution limits since now your time step is very important), or you simplify the physics and try to avoid the issue.

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.

But only if the GPL code can mix.

The FSF has agreed that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are fundamentally incompatible - GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions that conflict with GPLv2. So you have to be extremely careful when mixing GPL code together.

Basically, v2-only code (GPLv2) cannot touch v3 (GPLv3) code, and vice-versa. If you have v2 code, then make sure it is licensed as v2-or-higher (GPLv2+). The resulting GPLv2+ and GPLv3 code will form a GPLv3 work (if the GPLv3 code was GPLv3+, then it's GPLv3+).

And that's where mixing code gets really dangerous.

Personally, I dislike GPLv3, so I dual license my code as GPLv2 and BSD-3clause. GPLv2 means it says v2 (I don't license it under v2-or-higher), and the BSD 3 clause is inherently GPL incompatible. So the dual license means you can use it with GPL code (as a GPLv2 work, meaning no GPLv3 code can be included), or obey the 3 clause BSD and use it however you feel like it.

Yes, I sleep at night. If some company wants to take my work and use it, good on them. My issue is GPL folks who say "BSD lets companies steal your code" without admitting that GPL does the same while also saying GPL is superior because it doesn't allow it. Sorry, but locking BSD code up as GPL is exactly the same as companies locking up BSD code. Saying your license is superior because it disallows others from doing the same while doing it yourself is disingenuous. More than one BSD project has been unable to get back contributions from "superior" GPL projects because doing so will mean accepting GPL code.

Or you could wash the wings once in a while. You're on the tarmac for over an hour while:
      - Passengers are busy boarding despite their boarding group not being called.
      - Crews are not loading your luggage.
      - The pilot is working on his second cup of "sober up" coffee.
      - The flight attendants are gossiping about who fucked whom.
      - Etc.

Might as well have a guy spend 2 minutes hosing off the wings. Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

Bug guts are sticky. They do not simply hose off. You need to actually scrub them off, and if you're doing that, you need skilled labor because there are lots of sensitive things that stick out of aircraft.

More than one aircraft has been lost because someone missed removing some tape covering some hole or other that was applied in order to wash the aircraft.

And there's a lot of surface to scrub, too.

Even little bug smashers like Cessnas take a good while to clean off (and flying through a bog meant you often flew through a crowd of mosquitos, so the leading edge was covered in lots of little red spots).