This looks to me just like Square Cash.

The problem is that "your chosen extensions" can cause worse bloat than an unused feature in a browser. I'd rather have as much functionality as I can from the developer of the browser itself. Extensions are helpful (particularly for obscure features that no browser developer would bother writing because the user base would be too small) but all to often they break more than they fix.

Basically, the Vivaldi browser is designed to appeal to people who miss Opera 12.x. When Opera moved to Chromium in version 15, it did basically what you are talking about--stripped out nearly every feature aside from browsing itself and it opened up to Chrome extensions. But, many of us found that, in order to add extensions to Opera 15 and later, that met the features we used from 12.x, the browser was a hulking mess--and the extensions for the most part don't work as well as the built in functionality from 12.x. And the whole thing was now slower and riddled with memory leaks due to the extensions.

So, basically, I'm not going to suggest that you must switch to Vivaldi, but personally, I am keeping my eye on the project. I think there is a good user base to be had out there for it.

But don't the fitness trackers all pair with smartphones to actually convey the data they collect? It seems that this research is saying that any fitness tracker that relies on pairing with a phone is redundant (unless the tracker does something grand that the phone does not).

Disclaimer: I have a smartphone, so I don't feel like I need a fitness tracker (and still wouldn't feel like I was in need of a fitness tracker if I didn't have a smartphone--I don't need something on my wrist to tell me that I sit in front of a computer in my mom's basement all day).

Holy crap! I'm having a hard time imagining that getting funded.

I've always wondered the purpose of the wrestling in Festivus. It all comes together now.

Personally, I think voting is a great way to determine truth. When that doesn't work, generally a wrestling match does.

I agree with this, but I'm not particularly concerned. I do not think that the general public would be viewing the videos like a live feed or much at all. I think we already have precedent for how this would work--dash cams in police cars. That system seems to work fine and I think it would be the same here.

If this is true then it still makes perfect sense to use the body cameras. There are far fewer allegations of police brutality to deal with--whether the reduction comes from an actual decrease in police brutality or from a reduction in false claims of police brutality or an increase of cooperation of the people in-front of the officer--who cares? It's all good to me.

In my mind, the only true downside of the body cameras is the expense of dealing with collection and storage of thousands upon thousands of hours of mundane footage. I am not confident that the monetary benefit of the cameras (e.g., I witnessed a trial of police officers accused of police brutality, which allegations were utterly falsified in my opinion. The department spent a lot of money on that case) will outweigh the monetary cost (I think the cost of maintaining the system will be more than the cost of false allegations). But, there is a nonmonetary benefit that it sounds more and more to me like outweighs the cost.

An effective police force needs the trust of the public, and I think this is at a low point lately. It sounds like the body cameras will probably help.

This is veering offtopic, but, according to this article, thepiratebay.cr is not to be trusted, if I am understanding it correctly:

Probably any torrent site is not to be easily trusted, but I could imagine hackers setting up a lookalike site in order to get people who should know better to download problematic stuff. Heck, maybe the CIA set it up.

There is at least one other instance I am aware of that might suggest you are correct:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Nuh-uh

And neither Apple (the music company) nor Apple (the computer company) was able to prevent the other from using the name, even after the computer company dove into the music world (though they settled that without a trial). "General Motors" is a unique and specific enough combination of words (e.g., it isn't such a great name for a software company), that I don't think they could easily be used by another company in a nonconfusing way.

I just don't see confusion with GNOME as a likely outcome of allowing Groupon to name its tablet Gnome. Trademark doesn't give the holder the uninhibited right to use a word. It just gives the holder the rights to a word in a specific realm.

Thanks for RTFA for me. Now I won't bother.

This factory is expected to be gargantuan and will employ a great many smart people with good paying jobs. The factory will have a great many trucks going in and out. The money going to pay these people is coming from the income from a California company. So, well paid engineers will receive California money to purchase houses and furniture and food, etc. in NV. The engineers will pay sales taxes, property taxes, and will spend money in the casinos (I almost mentioned income taxes, until I remembered that NV doesn't have a state income tax--they have casinos instead). The calculus that NV is making with this deal is that the tax revenue it is giving up from Tesla will more than be made up for by the cut of the income they keep from the money that Tesla will pay to its employees and to NV truck drivers and suppliers, etc. The thought is that this will be a net positive for NV.

If Black Hats don't hack it then the NSA will. But the NSA will quietly keep the vulnerability(ies) to themselves and use them to collect data. Whereas a Black Hat looking to rely on TOR will be best off figuring out its weaknesses in order to make it more effective.

In other words, people who rely on TOR would be completely stupid to not try to hack it to determine its vulnerabilities. The only odd thing about this isn't really odd at all when you think about these hackers are--they're exposing vulnerabilities in a particularly spectacular fashion.