European vehicle regulations require such headlamps to be equipped with lens cleaners and an automatic self-leveling system to keep the beams aimed correctly regardless of vehicle load and attitude, but no such devices are required on motorcycles, or where ECE regulations are inapplicable.
For that reason alone, xenon headlights are a blessing. At least around here. Not a single xenon-lit car blinds me, as opposed to those with halogen lights that don't even bloody know that they have a damn wheel/knob to adjust the headlights. Or some drive around with full beam because they can't actually tell the difference from within the car (I assure you, you can with xenon).
On motorcycles it's not ubiquitous enough, yet. That fake glaring blue crap you see on cars? That's just plain stupid and as explained below has nothing to do with xenon.
For corporate use, end users usually don't have a choice but to follow company policy. Guess what that policy would be. Question: would an advertising agency enable tracking on its own corporate browsers?
It is indeed interesting to know how the choice is going to be enforced with OEMs, because you might as well alter the default user profile in a sleazy deal with $ADVERTISER$
if you dont like the terms, you can pretty quickly leave that site.
And how exactly does that favor of those defending DNT, i.e. advertisers and site owners?
the less time the CPU or GPU has to spend doing something the more time it can spend idling
It also enables more complex graphics on a higher display resolution without sacrificing performance or battery life. Efficiency savings don't always translate to devices that consume less (Jevons paradox).
I've sincerely run out of patience with apathy and inattention
This. But there's nothing legal you can do about it.
Has anyone investigated yet what data is actually transmitted to Cisco's backend?
I'm trying me best to please everyone, here.
Putting a thin veneer of technology over "might makes right" doesn't change the underlying principle.
The hacker(s) responsible for releasing the data probably laugh about statements like these. It doesn't change that sensitive data can be stolen by bad security policies, or simply when someone publishes something somewhere they shouldn't have.
The company should be fined for mistakes like these, because despite your very nice laws on intent and everything, people will find sensitive data when they're looking for it, and it shouldn't have been this easy. Technically, information this wide in the open is free game, and the publisher of the data didn't realize that. Hence the idiot tax.
This data is potentially visible for anyone looking for it. This is more like your physician's practice, or the bank manager, who doesn't really bother to lock up when he leaves for the day, with signs all across the office happily directing you to the filing cabinets. Nobody can steal the records, but they can look at them at will. It may well still be trespassing, but should the physician or bank manager get away with it?
some random person asked if it was the business data and if they could have it, and the moron executive said why not, here it is.
It's stronger than that. The briefcase had references to the contents on it. Also, if you assume that they don't put locations of secure pages in the robots.txt because they're not accessibly anyway, but it had an entry for a confidential but unsecured page, then they should have been fully aware that this page was publicly accessible.
send a very brief incorrect set of data indicating a head in the crosshairs
But... That's cheating!
Unless, of course, domain policies are intentionally configured to allow replay attacks.
Windows is a a proprietary product that will never in its life come with KeePass, Notepad++, ImgBurn, TrueCrypt and Firefox unless you make it so (it's easy to customize a Windows image file with a custom answer file, so you actually can).
You're going to have to make a choice: people whine about Windows having too many features that results in the community yelling "Bloat!" or even leads to anti-trust lawsuits if Microsoft includes a proprietary version of said software, or: look at it as a bare operating system that can run the applications you want to run. You can't have it both ways.
By the way, msiexec
Especially after they've pulled the drive out and plugged a copy of it into their forensics kit?