This isn't a "home invader" in the traditional sense of being a person. This is a device. Totally different category. This is not a use of deadly force case. This is a case of shutting down an invading device.
In Texas, you could completely dismantle the car as part of removing it from your property as long as you requested it to move and gave the person reasonable time to do so. The person signaled the drone to leave. It didn't. It gets squished. Legal here. Your laws may vary.
Where I live in Texas, that would be perfectly legal if you gave them time to withdraw after signaling you wanted them gone. They didn't, it becomes legit for you to remove it, even if that breaks whatever it is.
I think this may be a marketing mistake. Can we get the performance boost with the new substance but continue to call the new substance "silicon"? Perhaps we could rename silicon as something else to free up the namespace? "Silicon classic" perhaps?
You can't tell people about this kind of research because then the malignant people change their words. The only benefit is in keeping it quiet.
I think the term would be "script daddy", yes?
You don't want to autocorrect it unless you also provide a way for the user to say, "No, I really meant to type that." After all, what if this were a bug on a different service, say, Facebook, and you wanted to spread the word about it on Twitter? If autocorrect prevents you from typing certain strings, that's a potential problem when coincidentally there's a need to discuss that string. The correct thing is to decide it isn't a URL and just let it go.
It's still a tramp stamp, but now it is a tramp stamp that broadcasts just what kind of tramp you are. Herpes? Chlamydia? It'll make classifications much simpler for biologists studying the Wild American Tramp species.
Plays havoc with a goal of "keep machine free of malware", of course, but, hey, that's the price of privacy these days, right?
Stuxnet got onto Iranian centrifuges disconnected from the Internet and in locked and secured facilities. The problem is that at some point, someone has to communicate with these systems, so perfect security isn't possible... even just talking to them runs into the "little Bobby tables" problem.
Excellent idea. Needs to be tweaked somehow to support phones\tablets that don't have (standard) USB ports. But the idea is good.
It's a chicken/egg question. Do boys buy most comic books because girls have no interest in such things? Or do boys buy most comic books because the existing books are all marketed to boys? Historically, the answer has been believed to be the first option, but society generally has discovered over the last 50 years that with comic books as with many other things, the answer is the latter option... people make assumptions about what boys and girls want and thus drive the market thereby leaving out many consumers who don't fit the stereotypes.
Not hypocrisy. The law also protects against youth discrimination, but because that is so much rarer, the law goes into much greater detail on what constitutes discrimination against elders. Basically, the law bans all age discrimination in employment -- judge on merit and ability, not on age -- but spells out in detail all the questions you cannot ask during an interview in an effort to try to ferret out someone's age.
I think you miss the point of the question. AC wants to know why we just bombarded a planet with our debris -- scarring another world rather than take the extra fuel to clean up our mess and avoid adding to the craters on Mercury. This is a sentiment I've heard elsewhere -- that the extra science time wasn't worth the environmental cost of dumping our stuff on Mercury.
AC: What you miss is that Mercury is a lifeless rock already marked by tons of craters. One more makes little difference. There wasn't any benefit from the view of anyone working on the project in avoiding impacting Mercury. If this were Mars or someplace that humans might one day live, that would be different.
All the EULAs will just get updated to include a clause saying, "And you give us the right to share." The problem seems to be that if you *can* give permission then you will be coerced into giving permission. That implies that, just like a contract of enforced slavery is illegal in USA even if signed willingly, any agreement that gives permission for sharing is illegal. That would solve the problem of coercion but would wipe out a whole bunch of services that people actually like and want.
I don't have an answer, but I am pretty sure that just barring the data sharing would not actually change anything except the EULAs.