Seriously, if someone is running around breaking windows (pun intended) in your neighborhood, they're outed in the local crime report.
Actually, blotters don't publish the identities of the suspects because they're suspects. In the same way, I'm sure these companies are sharing more information with law enforcement than with the general public.
I prefer it this way to having a bunch of scripting vigilantes on Reddit doxing the wrong the guy.
I'll second that one. My first Android phone was really bad. It was slow, buggy, full of crapware, and a pain to use.
On the other hand... my very first smartphone is a $100 LG Transpyre. It has only 8GB of internal storage, Android 4.4, and doesn't have some of the more premium features like an ultra high resolution screen or NFC. I don't think it's in any way "crappy." You guys keep your cutting edge phones and I'll keep my $400.
Just imagine that a common simple search phrase referring to Christ had as it's first result a Satanist site?
It would be a major national news story. There would be editorials in news outlets large and small. Fox News and the right wing press would call it a terrorist act. There would be hearings in Congress, and calls for laws protecting religion. It would be a three ring media circus.
All truths are not created equal. Some points of view are more equal then others.
And apparently you'd be right there to keep shouting about how stupid the attention was. Creating more attention. Much like we're all doing here over something as stupid and as mundane as marketing.
I'm sure the publishers of tainted versions of PuTTY also have MD5s I can download and verify against.
Do you know what the purpose of a checksum is? What you said doesn't really make sense.
Publish the damn checksums at a minimum, or GPG signing key ideallly.
They are published:
Your average Windows user and his average admin don't know what to do with a checksum, however.
1) I've come to distrust the government in general
2) I've been in jury deliberations twice. This was far more damaging to my faith in our justice system.
But I'm not going to lose sleep over this one.
We still paid. It's horribly difficult to prove something like that in court. But I have a hunch that they are having a hard time getting more contracts. You see, word travels...
Again, see OP. Scrub the word "security" out and you could have this problem with any consultant. You win some, you lose some, you typically pay either way.
However, once you add the HDMI, it's essentially the same price as a raspberry pi model A.
If you are interested in the HDMI, you're doing it wrong. Did you see the picture where it's about the size of a standard LiPo? If they provide these things for the stated price, you're basically getting an ESP2866 with a built-in computer for only 3X the price.
it will eventually make your TV obsolete.
I wouldn't go that far. Some other means of displaying information may supplant tv screens as we know them, but not something everyone must put on and wear.
Managers clearly have a greater influence, but any second-rate employee can be a morale killer that hurts the economy.
Except a good manager won't allow that employee to continue as-is. Fix 'em or fire 'em.
It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Isn't that all cable bundling? You pay for channels you don't want so you can watch the few channels you do want. Besides, TFA doesn't disclose what the Verizon-ESPN contract actually says.
This episode reminds me of when Steve Jobs claimed Apple was always against DRM in iTunes but had to roll with it so the record labels would sell on iTunes. Right. Just like I'm sure Verizon has always hated charging you for huge cable packages. They're just trying to find a way to secure revenue a little while longer before online distribution really loosens up.