Clear skies, John.
Clear skies, John.
There are things like private/public key encryption you know.
Apparently you need to think about this a bit more. How exactly is Chrome supposed to decrypt a password without storing the secret that allow it to do so on the same machine/account? Even if the password is encrypted with an asymmetric key, the corresponding key must be stored where Chrome can access it to de-crypt the password(s).
Just curious how knowing where your child is will help prevent them from getting into a car crash or breaking a store window for fun? Perhaps you would be able to corroborate there location but really, I think that would only help clear up a very small percentage of cases like that.
In fact I would go further and say that a kid who is smart enough to know what they doing/about to do is wrong/illegal/not allowed will ultimately not take this tracking device with them (or leave it somewhere temporarily, etc etc). You need to trust you kids, and more importantly, they need to trust you. That's how they stay safe.
Your example is missing something important: discrete, visible targets that did not stand their ground, and gentleman that defended himself was a horrible shot: one assailant was grazed by a bullet, the other shot in the butt and hip. Thankfully no one else was hit or injured. So mission accomplished, but hardly in a controlled way that would have ended well in a crowded area.
Perhaps this gentleman had combat and/or tactics training, but this falls into my category of averting a crime of "opportunity" where the shooters were never intending on shooting or shooting back. So good for this guy and doing a good deed, but this is not the same type of scenario as in Denver, and had it been, the gentleman could easily have been dead before getting his gun out. Also remember the shooter in Denver supposedly had body armor on. Running out of cover towards the shooter would have been suicide.
I live is Canada, so I'm certainly not an expert on less restrictive gun laws. I wonder about this however. I would think that even with laws that permit citizens to own and carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), in a situation like in Denver, the ability to carry and shoot (say the type of practice a gun owner would get at a shooting range) would be useless as this is a completely different ballgame from controlled target practice.
My major concern any argument for carrying a weapon is that I do not think that the average gun owner (i.e. one that practices in controlled shooting situations and does not have any situational or combat training) would have been effective in stopping a shooter like this. One can extend this further and ask if even in a one-on-one firefight (which again, is not a scenario that I would imagine a typical gun owner trains for), an average gun owner could not reliably be expected to assess the situation and determine if shooting back would be a good or bad idea.
All in all, I think that while denying the ability for a citizen to arm themselves may be putting the weapons in the wrong hands, putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained to use them effectively is not the full solution either. Perhaps having different types of weapon permits, one for hunting, another for shooting practice at ranges only, and carry permits that require mandatory combat and tactical training along with re-certification (like in the armed forces or law enforcement) would be a better idea.
I think the implication is that should Microsoft choose to not support x86 devices, then ARM devices may be "all PCs" that can run Windows 8.
Any time I see a response to the tune of "... so and so is free to make a choice about such and such", I also think that there is no such thing as "free to choose" if one does not/can not/will not understand the finer details involved in that choice.
I can only freely choose to not buy this if I understand what does and does not work and how it can/will impact me. Most typical computer purchases are not made with this level of understanding.
In fact, the customer really must always be in control... of the features. As developers, we are good at what, how, when and where. It is however, the "why" that will hang us ever time. And the "why" is driven by and only by the stakeholders of the software being developed (i.e. typically the "client" or "customer"). So they must (imho) ALWAYS have control over the features, and be given input as to how their choice of features impacts the other variables: cost and delivery time (which we are supposed to be the experts in providing them).
I don't think it makes any difference on the development methodology used, but this one golden rule will, must always be obeyed in successful projects: the clients choose the features, the developers provide the estimates and recommendations on implementation and delivery time. Then the client is free to make an informed decision based on what's the most important features for them at the time frame that developers feel is achievable.
They just have to take a walk out the airlock... plenty of death outside. Why bother providing an additional negative focal point (i.e. an "escape plan") when one is readily provided by the environment?
An excellent reason to ask what expectations and metrics will be used in the review process ahead of time. You can't play, let along, win the game unless you know the rules. It's also a nice hint: no rules == time to look for another gig.
While I can not comment on the premise of your reply, I also can't understand how driving at the speed limit (or slower if you wanted) could possibly endanger others on the road... Multiple lane highway? Don't drive slowly in the left-most lane and you'll be fine. Single lane road? The worst that can happen is some asshole speeding up behind you and hitting you from behind (which can happen at any speed you care to drive at unless you happen to be driving at the highest speed of anyone on the road, at which point I would say you ARE endangering everyone else on the road).
This may be true in other parts of the world, but where I live in the province of Quebec, Canada, you CANNOT give yourself/use the title of engineer unless you are part of the Order of Engineers of Quebec. Other place may have similar laws.
Ah yes, what's wrong with the world today: something that is obviously no good causing you grief? Well don't do anything that would cause discomfort! It's only cool to protest if it doesn't inconvenience anyone, if that's ok with you? No? Oh well, then we'll just go on with our lives as usual.
I disagree strongly for thinking that a "major inconvenience" is not warranted when trying to stand up for what you believe in . In a world where we as individuals feel unable to affect change, I applaud individuals with influence using what they can to stand up for what they believe in. I hope the world your actions would precipitate does not come to pass.
Or just shut the water off while you're on vacation.
The bigger the theory the better.