What do you make of it Johnny?! Well, you can make a hat, a broach, a pterodacty!....
"Never, ever, anywhere should you gloat about your security, we are ALL vulnerable. If you think otherwise and gloat about it you only increase your risk." Signed, Colonel Klink.
I'll bet is was because both of them had unacceptable policies regarding privacy, security/integrity and/or what they are responsible to do if a breach does occur. I'll also bet that those same policies were/are acceptable to various branches of American government, because our standards for those issues here in The United States lag waaaaay behind European standards.
Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the only way it could be creepier would be if he was just starring at you without even a camera. You could make it less creepy by having him keep his distance. Or have fixed position stand (aka a tripod). Or if the drone were high enough up that you didn't immediately notice it.
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.
She might also have been signed with SONY.
What's to discuss? When a particular "mission" is taken to "religious" extremes, with no good can come of it.
Vendor: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find information being leaked here!" Waiter: "Here's your mined data sir..." Vendor: "Thank you"
Cash will ALWAYS exist. Whether out of the desire for anonymity, the convenience or the underground economy.
It's not the quality of the app you write, it's how easy people find it and perceive it. I am very slowly learning this. Go read the book "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz. Whether you like it or not, it's true.
"Fortunately, the trademark laws are fairly cut and dried. To be in violation, you either need to be using a trademark without permission in a way likely to cause confusion, or using the trademark in a way that causes "trademark dilution" which "dilutes the distinctive quality of the trademark". You seem to be doing neither in this case." Note - I am not a lawyer, I just found and paraphrased this by googling "referencing a trademark"
at least at the start of this next frontier how about testing for the chip profiling software. It's one thing to be able to "detect subtle differences" in floating point operations but another to do it while also trying to avoid detection while you're doing it.
See Karl?!?!? I TOLD YOU we shouldn't have created those accounts so closely together...