So they banned Carlos Mencia's twitter account?
Why are we assuming the other employees are not capable of understanding this? When they ask, the company says "Joe makes more because he has specialized skill X that the rest of you don't have". They may then learn that skill and be more useful to the company in which case they should make more or they don't learn the skill and stay where they are.
And what of the more real life version of this? A company needs to hire 3 people and find 3 equally qualified applicants that they want. The company has budgeted $50000 per job for salary. They offer the first $40000 because they only made $40000 at their last job and they accept. They offer the second $40000 and he counter offers with $44000 and they accept. The last comes from a high paying company so they offer him $55000 and he accepts. You now have 3 equally qualified candidates doing the same work making 3 completely different salaries and overall, the company is coming out ahead because they aren't spending as much as they thought the jobs were actually worth. When they compare salaries and see the difference the lower 2 should demand an increase since they are doing the same job as the highest paid one for less money.
I can definitely see where this could become a problem. A lot of the "girl" toys are playing directly into the gender stereotypes to get girls interested. If you want girls to like it, make it pink and put flowers on it. Instead of working to actually make it something that would actually interest girls (or god forbid both boys and girls) they just slap some paint on it and give it a girly name.
The bigger issue though is that they have to make "girl" things because most of them are specifically geared towards boys. That is why the answer they come up with is to make it girly. There is no reason we need special Legos in a pink box with cats and houses specifically for girls. Just stop specifically targeting boys with your marketing and girls will want to play with it (see the ads from the 70s that have both genders in the ads). More stereotypes are not the answer to the current stereotypes.
You won't see a huge influx of successful attacks right after support ends. I doubt people are sitting on 2003 vulnerabilities and not using them, just waiting for support to end. If they have them and they work, they would use them now when there are more targets and before someone else uses it and it gets patched. The issue will be when new cross platform vulnerabilities are found that work on 2003. Since those won't be patched, they will continue to remain vulnerable to them. But I don;t imagine there will be a bunch of attacks on 2003 just because ti leaves support.
Unfortunately, there isn't anything really to do to increase your privacy unless you want to give everything up. Sure, I could start using PGP and encrypt all my emails. That would work great until I actually wanted to send and email to someone, because no one else I know uses PGP. I can use a "secure" search engine, but there is no way to tell if it is really secure or if I am just using an inferior product to make myself feel better. Sure, I can avoid Facebook and Twitter and everything else, but again, I then give up easy contact with those that do. The government has back doors into everything, so unless I avoid anything they might be able to access (which frankly is pretty much everything) there isn't anything I can really do.
I never understood this type of reaction. Yes, they are eating a boatload of calories through everything else, but at least they are cutting out a few hundred with the diet coke. Yes, it won't make them thin, but at least they are doing something to try and get healthier and possible lose a little weight, which they should be applauded for. You are probably the same type of person that goes to gym and tells people they should just quit because they aren't lifting enough weight or only doing cardio. The fact is, they are doing something, which is more than some people do and should be encouraged.
Passwords are not a perfect solution, no one denies that. But overall, they are a good solution, especially when combined with something like and RSA key or Google authentication. Biometrics seems easier and more secure, and on the face it is. The issue with biometrics is that once there is a way around it, there is no way to change it. So you fingerprint is secure today. But tomorrow someone comes up with a way to fake your fingerprint. You are now stuck because you can't change you fingerprint. With a password, if it is hacked you can change it. With biometrics, if they are hacked you are entirely screwed because it can't be changed (which is the point of biometrics). Sorry, I'll stick with passwords for now.
I can see the revised police procedure manual now.
"When a suspect resists, but them in a "warm embrace" by placing your arm around their throat and squeezing."
"If a suspect does not follow your instructions, give them a "gentle scalp massage" with your night stick."
"Once a suspect is down, form a "cuddle pile" of 6 or 7 officers on top of them until they stop struggling."
While this is a great idea that works in the rest of the world, there is no way it can work here. Our tax system is too screwed up for it to work in the US. Most other countries don't have different taxes for different types of income, tax deferred income, tax deductions, tax rebates, and any number of other things to deal with. It would work for people with very simple tax returns but our system is too screwed up for it to work for most people.
This is the same reason a flat tax would never work in the US. No one wants to give up their loopholes and deductions and the only way a flat tax works is if all that goes away.
There is no need to state that though, that is already covered by existing law (minus fair use exemptions). And even if that is what they meant, no where does it say the NFL's accounts and description. It simple says accounts and descriptions.
While it is true this is what they say, it doesn't make it illegal. Think about it for a second. They are basically saying that without their express permissions, Jimmy Kimmel can't say "Did you see the game yesterday? Can you believe the final touchdown play where Joe Blow ran past 6 defenders to score?" That would be a broadcast of a description of the game. Just because you are broadcasting your retelling of the game doesn't make it any different. The NFL can't stop you from describing what you watched.
I predict that within 10 years GreatLand Connections will be purchased by Comcast/TW.
The bigger problem is that a lot of these channels will probably go away if they get rid of bundling. A lot of the smaller niche channels survive until they can support themselves by being bundled with more popular channels (and many of them never make any money and totally live off of other channels). If bundling is gone, then every channel basically has to be making money in a short amount of time or they will be gone.
For example, I would bet dollars to donuts that the Sci-Fi channel didn't make any money for years. It survived because it was bundled with other channels so cable companies were forced to carry it. Basically, unbundling means the channels downgrade to the lowest common denominator because no one will be willing to spend the money on hoping a channel can find it's audience.
Technology is part of the reason we can't get away from work, the other is the change in overtime rules. It used to be that companies had to pay overtime for hours worked over 40. This meant that when people left their job, they also left their work at their job in general. Even if you could call someone at home and ask them a question, you didn't. Unfortunately, the overtime rules were eroded to the point that almost no one gets overtime. If you work in an office setting at all, you are expected to put in more than 40 hours a week every single week and not get paid for it. Since they don't have to pay overtime, there is no issue with calling and emailing people at all hours and expecting them to answer. Technology made it easier to get a hold of people outside of business hours, but the reduction of overtime meant that it was okay to do it, which is the bigger issue.
While this may be the way it worked, the issue is that they didn't tell users this. Instead of telling users "music you added manually will be overwritten" they threw up a generic error and then told the user they had to factory reset the phone. It's fine i your sync deletes the stuff on the phone and overwrites it with the stuff from the computer. It's not alright if you purposely hide this fact from the user so they don't know what is going on.