Did you actually click the link? If anything the paid results are more obvious in my opinion. There's a bright yellow icon marking them out explicitly as "ADS" versus a light grey border labeled euphemistically "sponsored results". This is, at most, a step to the side, not a step backwards.
Except Google has no way of knowing if it is the child or the adult using the phone, so it's reasonable to hold the owner responsible in such cases.
Google has an easy way of verifying that the account holder or someone authorized by them is using the phone: require the password. If you don't want to require the password every purchase and want to have a 30 minute grace period after each password entry, put an active notification in the notification bar with a countdown and a way to manually leave the grace period.
Doesn't this mean that anybody could reverse any online marketplace credit card transaction just blaming their kids? Or even wife, if it wasn't my intent that she used my card for online shopping?
Yes, and that would be fraud: deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
While there are other techniques that can be used to make 2-party-only communications, quantum secured methods have the advantage that there is no known way to recreate a photon with the same properties as the one you had to intercept to XOR against that bit that was sent in a clear channel (assuming you even know which property is being used to modify the data feed).
You don't need to if you're truly a man in the middle, what you need is two setups just like the people you are eavesdropping on. During negotiation, you receive a photon from Alice, you send a different photon on to Bob. When information comes down, you decrypt it with the first photon, read what you want, then re-encrypt it with the second.
I've not heard any explanation for how such systems prevent a man in the middle attack, I suspect the answer is simply that they don't. Of course, if you were to combine quantum cryptography with more pedestrian forms you might be able to make the claim, but if you're going to do that aren't there easier methods of unbreakable communication?
Our healthcare system has many problems, vaccines are not one of them. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater to use an old phrase.
At the moment no one is dying in the streets in fact. Whatever the legality of Russia's actions there have not been any shots fired between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Well, ok, I think I read one story about warning shots being fired, but no one is being shot at this time. The cyber antics are part of a larger picture, on the one hand Russia bunkering up on the Crimean peninsula, consolidating their hold on infrastructure and communications. On the other, a disorganized (and presumably grass roots) hacking effort that looks more like the actions of Anonymous than the Ukrainian government (and probably is).
This is perhaps a stupid question but one worth asking. For what it's worth I originally agreed with your stated concern and I'd much prefer the ability to disable this functionality on any device I own but I digress.
What would this hypothetical ability to brick your phone give the government that they don't already have? The government having this ability in the event of a revolution presupposes cooperation with the carriers. The very carriers that can already block your phone by number or location. For that matter, the army could send a small force to each and every cell tower in the area and shut them down manually (violently) if necessary. For that matter it would probably be more useful for them to just listen in on anyone they are worried about, which again they can already do.
So I just can't buy that this is some kind of government power grab. It's still a terrible idea IMO, but that particular argument just doesn't ring true to me.
Additionally, the Ouya hardware fell behind the market fairly quickly because of its use of a Tegra 3 which is actually quite poor in terms of graphical power. A Tegra 4 iteration should do a lot to fix this, although a Tegra K1 would be most optimal.
By the time a company the size of Ouya designs, prototypes, tests, tweaks, retests, produces, and ships a product, there will be another generation or two beyond that available and they'll be behind again. Mobile CPU/GPU advancements are simply happening too quickly right now for them to be leveraged by anyone except the heaviest of heavy hitters.
Actually, mitochondria DNA does have effects on athletic performance, so there is that.
here in Paris, you can legally rent apartments that are as small as 9 sq. m.
And you can leave them whenever you want. In fact, the basic expectation when renting an apartment like that is that you won't be spending any significant amounts of time in it beyond sleeping (which is actually an incredibly expensive way to live).
Trapping someone in an environment that confined with no outside contact is torture, plain and simple. The human mind isn't evolved to look at a flat grey wall for 23 hours a day.
I think you hit closer to the truth than most people.
Using spell check will help someone who is poor at spelling or typing put words to paper faster, but it's not going to make (or break) a great novelist.
Similarly, using an IDE will help someone with incomplete (but really given the size and scope of modern languages that is everyone) programming knowledge, but it's not going to make or break a great software designer/engineer.
Look at it this way: would you give a toddler a pair of crutches in order to teach him to walk?
That is an astonishingly bad analogy given the popularity of toddler walkers and the fact that every child while learning to walk starts buy pulling themselves up next to something and scooting along it's length.
Netflix is breaking the long standing status quo.
Here's what you don't understand: Cogent (on behalf of Netlix) wants to send packets to the ISP. The ISP (on behalf of their customers!) wants to receive those packets. No one is getting shafted. Both sides of the agreement are already getting what they should be wanting. Now the ISPs are coming along and saying that the peering agreements are only about upstream bandwidth? Why? The ISP's customers are the ones who requested the packets that Cogent is trying to deliver to them.
You cannot have entanglement without interaction, you cannot have interaction between two things that lie outside of each other's light cones.
To be fair, you can't have interaction outside of your light cone without also having faster than light communication. But you can't have faster than light communication without also having the possibility of sending messages back in time. And you can't have the possibility of sending messages back in time without breaking causality. So, on the one side you have the assumption that causality doesn't exist and faster than light communication is possible (both of which are contradicted on scales from pico-meters to billions of lightyears), on the other side you have the assumption that information can't travel faster than light (which again, seems to be supported by every experiment and observation made in human history).