Yours is not a good example, PRO, performing right organizations, SACEM in france SIAE in Italy, have long had agreements in place to get performing rights from each other's protected works. The law governing those territories is a problem of the resident PRO.
Nice to know that in our beloved EU the top priority for a politician is the harmonization of copyright. It means that all the other pressing problems have been solved.
Of course big sites don't offer you the content as easily. Get logged in, get profiled, don't get out.
They have circumvented a protection measure, that is wiping the phone- a faulty protection measure, but that doesn't matter, as history taught us if you find holes and publicize them, no matter the responsibility of the manufacturer, you are terrorist!
Moreover, it is clear they have an interest in selling their own protection products, and that they have given bad ideas to people who normally would have started using the second hand phone and overwriting the crap with their own crap.
So why doesn't avast end up in trouble like $RANDOM_HACKER ? Huh?
Before MTV, cellphones and in general the sensory overload of contemporary urban life, extroverts could stay with themselves for 15 minutes too.
Introverts are to be considered uncool, not because they are more or less abnormal (the media hype, and therefore sanction, people with degenerate, inane, self-harming behavior: get a teenager's top 20 chart and listen to the lyrics).
They are uncool because they think too much for themselves. The system improperly known as society want people who respond to emotions, not thinkers.
I have a cunning plan, my lord.
- The guest doesn't get open internet access.
- The wifi provider opens up a secure tunnel with a server designated, or owned by the guest. The ISP is foiled.
- The guest connect to it and sets up a secure tunnel itself, through which he accesses the internet. The wifi provider is foiled as it cannot snoop on it and cannot be considered responsible by what the guest does, morally. Legally it's another matter, but then, the law is immoral. Also if the guest misbehaves the investigators will find the server designated/owned by the guest first, which is probably the right place to investigate if you want to find the real source.
> CMB is based on data that can't be explained any other *reasonable* way
There are no parameters for defining reasonable or unreasonable things in a universe, if you happen to exist in the same universe, because you have no way to discover all the rules from the inside of it. I posit you have no way to discover any of the rules from the inside of it.
Science does not explain, science models.
Because for every chain of reasons that science can come up with, "the last element is "because it is that way".
> they call it BoringSSL because it contains a backdoor tunneling protocol.
In fact, I was thinking: "Boring, my ass", but I didn't know exactly why.
You left out some other possibilities. Sufficiently advanced civilizations might travel by hacking the spacetime, or by out of body experiences. So we might be observed without alien spacecrafts hovering over our heads.
And the observers might indeed be quite bored.
> No way! Not even possible.
Pffft. Get one, step on it, voila'.
For something completely different, I'll put a man on LEGO, any takers?
In the alternate universe where nokia execs say "Fuck you, disseminate the key" we have nokia with a hacker friendly smartphone platform OR an instantly obsoleted platform thanks to evil hackers. I guess they would be better off than this nokia.
"Being broken" was the business model of microsoft windows and they became number one with it.
Nope, not "any". Any sufficiently advanced incompetence should approximate malice about 50% of the time, the other 50% it should approximate competence. When a random guy you have business with always overcharges you and never undercharges you, do you assume incompetence or malice?
commercial name, Zyklon B...
Because organisms that reproduce rapidly also tend to mutate rapidly (more opportunity per time unit, more unstable DNA) and just because there's no evolutionary need doesn't prevent random mutations from occurring.
It prevents random mutations from having advantages, though. In unvaccinated hosts the mutants compete for needed resources with all their peers, while they have an advantage in vaccinated people. To become prevalent they may need two stages, one of generation and one of selection. As you say below:
It sounds like these new mutations (which all microorganisms undergo regularly) are opportunistically using the unvaccinated as their proving ground.
And the vaccinated as their selectors, possibly. But I repeat, serious, in depth studies are the only possible answer.
I don't see why the illness should mutate more where it encounters less resistance, that is in the not immunized hosts.
But OK, somebody will sure have studies on this, and hopefully they have been independently confirmed.
Still it is the opposite phenomenon of what happens in hospitals: pathogens that manage to survive there become way difficult to remove. I also wonder what Darwin would have thought of less selective pressure leading to more mutations.