People and groups who would tell you that pressure cookers are 'weapons of mass destruction',
God, you're a fucking dunce. The US code definition of "weapon of mass destruction" is different from the international meaning, you god damn smug idiot.
Then we have this gem.
sure there is an argument that the Boston marathon bombing was terrorism
What the fuck are you talking about? What's the argument that it wasn't, Captain Weasel Words?
From reading your limp-wristed "analysis" I'm now convinced you are a shit-cocked little runt.
This is completely untrue and this bug is a massive breach, staggering in its scope.
Any CGI script is potentially vulnerable, and it wouldn't be hard to exercise.
Here's a hint as to how one might exploit this.
I mock the idiocy of you thinking "hypocrite" means something in terms of international relations. What are you, 8?
We do what is in our best interests and try to use our influence or force to get other countries to do what is in our best interests. Just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY.
We will not be giving up nuclear weapons, it would be rank idiocy to even suggest it. What we should do is downsize and modernize.
That's because people are dumb and we live in an era where everyone is baselessly afraid of the social network zeitgeist. It's fucking pathetic, really.
Ray Rice's crime was between him and his wife and especially the cops. To the extent that he is s representative of the NFL a punishment is appropriate, 2 games was fine, 6 games would have been fine too.
What's not fine is a bunch of pathetic busybodies making it out like he murdered someone and stuffed her in his trunk. I get it, people are against domestic violence - do you want a fucking cookie? He should pay for his crime but "making an example" is rarely sound policy, and "listening to the rabble" is an even less sound policy.
I also like how the actual victim in this, his wife, is over it and married him afterwards but to "protect" her people want her husband to lose his source of income forever. Pretty sweet fucking logic, right there.
If you don't want to use your personal phone for work, don't. Easy peasy. You could even tell a white lie and say you don't have one.
I think the solution here is for companies to provide ca. 1995 brick cell phones to employees. "Oh, you want reimbursed? Turns out we'll provide you a phone, here you go big guy" (proceeds to hand employee a 9 oz phone with no screen). They could even not go that crazy and give out the lamest feature phones they can find. I guarantee you the whiners will be all "Oh, uhh, nevermind."
Most humorous to me is that you think you could possibly trust someone else anyway. It would be security theater. Your data is going over the Internet and to someone else's server, then over the Internet to someone _else's_ computer. It's going to backups, possibly at both ends.
You are a fool if you think it can be secured, and an even bigger fool if you think you can trust companies or employees not to search or read it regardless of the law.
Oh toss off. You and everyone else are too lazy to worry about using encryption that you want to run crying to the government to protect you.
Fuck off. If you don't like what Google does with the free email service they provide you, don't fucking use it you entitled wanker.
Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand progress. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982