Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.
Never forget how many shipyards have closed in the USA during the last 70 years. And how long it takes to train new workers to construct that kind of ships.
Worse, even events less powerful than the Carrington Event occur more frequently than the Carrington Event and can cause significant damage to our high voltage infrastructure.
What seems more amazing is that a simple software check pre-launch (i.e. "do all the sensors think they are pointed up?") was not part of the SOP. Given that their exact function is orientation detection, skipping the opportunity for self-test via that function is somewhat baffling.
No - the sensors were 'angular velocity sensors'. They do not measure orientation but change of orientation. Is a bit more difficult to check pre-launch than an orientation sensor.
The very fact that the 'evidence' is collected by spyware is full evidence that spyware is performing activities the user is unaware about. It implicitely proofs the machine is not under full user control. It therefore proofs not all actions performed at the machine are endorsed by the user.
Since one piece of spyware/malware managed to get installed on the computer means users anti virus and anti malware software is not up to its task. If that is the case, then the installation of other spyware/malware packages is very likely. Meaning there is reasonable doubt about who or what did a download.
And you can not convict a suspect if there is reasonable doubt - not yet anyway.
All the picture proofs is that said user was using the computer at a certain point in time. It doesn't proof the user was doing the download of the copyrighted material. If there was other spyware running at the computer, then that other piece of spyware could be performing the download. All recorded keystrokes, mouse clicks and other logged event are suspect if spyware packages are running at the a machine.
If such a picture were to be accepted as 'evidence' in court, then hackers could easily frame anybody they dislike. Just install the hackers spyware package, spoof some 'evidence' towards the corporate spyware and another sucker gets owned.
However, I hate the problem more than I dislike the solution.
Spyware like this can prove that someone did indeed commit acts of copyright infringement as alleged.
No, it can't. Since the TFA talks about "a group of 13 industry associations", we would get every one of these industry associations to install it's own spyware package on your machine.
So if copyrights were to be infringed from your machine, who can prove that YOU were to one to do it, and not one of the spyware packages? All one can prove is that it happened from your machine, not WHO or WHAT did it. A compromised system is by definition out of your control.
Link to Original Source
Any support on your product beyond the end-of-support date for a product needed to perform this support should be on a best effort basis, never on result commitment basis.
Also consider increasing your hourly rate by 10% for each year beyond the end-of-support date of the products you use - this encourages your client to buy an upgrade to a new version of your product, build with current tools.