They did not even have a working prototype just a bunch of guys with an idea they had on a napkin. Only fools invest in these things.
I think this is the really important part. You should be thinking as an investor, even if all you get out of the affair is a product.
Even big time investors lose their money in a business, but they reduce their risk by first making sure that the company already has an element of something tangible and they also do due diligence. It is probably harder to do due diligence on sites such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but you do what you can and then decide whether you can afford to write-off your investment if something goes wrong. Most business don't make it through the first year, even without the owner stealing the money, so take that to heart when you set down your cash.
I was tempted to cite something interesting, but I realised I didn't have enough money to pay a lawyer to see whether it was legal to do so or whether I could get a license to do so.
In reality I would appreciate a list of the bill's sponsors and then just blacklist them, so we don't accidentally make their content linkable.
Making it mandatory or else face criminal charges, is simply ridiculous.
It may be extreme, but how else do you encourage people to fill it in. Heck, this only happens every five years?
It is a pain to fill in, but if it means understanding the needs of the general population better, then I am for it. Sure they will be bad data, such as when people just make things up, but every statistical process has some error margin.
It will be interesting if Google, Apple et al suddenly suspend service and sales in the UK. I wonder what the electorate would say.
Or maybe the British government will mandate that they can't cut them off? This would be reminiscent of when the Spanish government tried forcing Google to keep indexing the newspapers, when they had decided that Google was to compensate the papers for indexing them!? Maybe we need to have a hall of shame for "stupid tech laws passed by governments"?
"Is this the sort of thing that the EU could override?"
Yes, that's why the morons want out.
Also, by definition, no encryption is unbreakable, you just need a few thousand years to crack it.
Or the right algorithms, the right computing power and encryption that is regulated to be limited to a certain level? I am sure Interpol or various intelligence agencies could push to have the right tools?
The problem with what the British government is asking is that it just takes one slip for the backdoor to be left wide open (see TSA security keys) and anyone who really cares about protecting their stuff and understands what they are doing probably will just encrypt their stuff with other encryption tools, that don't follow the rules. In the end what they are asking for only burns the general public.
The other thing is to compare decryption time to Moore's Law and thus estimating what sort of encryption level is needed for a given point in time (see here)
Alternatively improve compilers to warn against these specific symbols or treat them as equivalent?
Aside from being unachievable, we should be asking ourselves as a species: is it even a good idea to try?
The amount of energy we "use" (ie. convert) today will register as noise relative to what we will be using in 1,000 years from now (should we survive). We've reached the age, as a species, where we need to be focusing on the long-term, as well as the short-term. If we're to survive past the next mass extinction event, we're going to have to keep the technology advancement train a'rollin. There is no going back, and there's no reason to go back.
We should each strive to reduce our impact on the planet, our resources, and each other. We should build efficient machines, and use them efficiently. We should stop burning coal, gas, and oil, and generate our electricity through a blend of hydro, nuclear fission, solar, wind, and geothermal. These are all short-term achievable, and healthy for our civilization.
But we should not be compromising our ability to convert enormous amounts of energy, nor the effort we put into developing this technology. For one day, we're gonna need it.
This is probably why Apple requires the passcode after a hard reboot, power on, after being flat or not bent used for more than 24-hours. Nothing is ever totally secure, but balancing convenience and security hardness is always an art and will depend on the usage context and what is being protected.
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted. There are only 10,000 four-digit PIN combinations, and iPhones don't self-destruct after a certain number of tries. Pretty easy to brute force it.
Encryption is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security.
Apple recently moved to six-digit codes minimum for all phones, by default. With the presence of finger reader this is not much of an issue.
You can reduce or increase the security requirements of the passcode, but that is a personal choice.
First, they spied on the peons
Then, they spy on the MPs
Dear Queen Elizabeth, they will spy on you, next !
Don't worry, the tabloids already take care of the royal family.
It belongs back in 1995 and has no place being used for anything anymore. Use a real fucking format. I mean it's no wonder it's 12 GB, If this had been a Webm it would've compressed into a couple MB easily.
Actually, any dedicated video format would do better than this. I have seen some sites that accept uploading of GIFs only to convert them and serve them as MPEG4. The additional advantage is supporting a larger colour range.
GIFs seemed cool until I discovered how big they were, compared to the equivalent video. Can anyone explain why they still seem attractive?
If it is because they are treated as images, maybe the browser image tag could silently accept MPEG4 or WebM and treat them as equivalent somehow?
Could they not simply charge the auto manufacturers for the testing? Also, are there any ways to automate the testing process,to increase throughput, or is there a market for consumer operated testing equipment?
I thought the same thing, but in TFA:
Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.
I suspect there is a bias towards driver safety in the US standards, since cars tend to have a single occupant.
This is part of the problem with the TTIP and other 'negotiated in secret' trade agreements. Populations in different cultures and populations have different priories for them, so a government is penalised for trying to be stricter on companies, than in another geography, there is a problem. The TTIP just encourages the lowest common dimonator to rule the board, since that is going to make it easier on corporations, rather than protecting the interests of citizens in a given location.
The only winners for TTIP and the sister trade agreements are US centric multinationals, at least from what I have read.
The primary role of the police is to protect the rich from the poor. Any protections granted TO the poor are secondary and generally accidental.
Makes me wonder how much this aligns with people who vote vs people who don't vote. If the poor are less likely to vote, then is that because they don't understand the importance or they get convinced it is not worth it? The other question, is if a person from this community stood up and got voted in, would that person remain loyal to those people, following the change in wealth status?
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it. -- C. Schulz