You're better off with multipar rather than chuchusoft's par2 binaries.
It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.
It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.
Then you're as stupid as the cops. Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public. Cops are scared of "stalkers"? As if stalkers wouldn't exist without a phone app??? Should cops be scared of breathing city air? Should we be providing them breathing masks along with their bulletproof vests and 17 round firearms?
Those two cops that were murdered in NYC were not killed because of an app. They were killed because a deranged shitbag got the jump on them. If cops feel justified killing misdemeanor lifestyle criminals with dangerous, prohibited chokeholds, then they should not feel like the people who pay their salaries support them.
Use your brain. The cops don't want waze because it makes it harder for them to meet their arrest quotas. That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have
That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.
Only a moron would depend on a voluntary participation app to keep him from getting arrested in a bank robbery. Don't go into crime, you'd get arrested with the other dumbasses.
Any sale of goods, provision of service, or transaction has implied requirements by the vendor to not "damage" the recipient or bystanders. When such vendor is remiss in delivering services as such, OR try to cover up malfeasance, that is a civil harm. When it physically damages individuals, or otherwise legally defined, it is a crime. In most cases, damages are resolved in the civil courts.
Microsoft's products are so pervasive in our society, their ability to be penetrated by hackers threatens bank accounts, personnel records, medical records, and in rare cases, infrastructure. Where Microsoft is "negligent", they can be sued. Its only a matter of time.
And unknown flaw lurking for years does not make Microsoft liable for negligence. A KNOWN flaw, which Microsoft does not move on, will eventually be grounds for civil damages. If it ends up killing people, its possible for it go criminal trial.
Takes about halfway through Season 1 for Agents of SHIELD to really come together, bout the time Winter Soldier came out, and the series tied into the MCU more solidly as a backdrop for the overall series storyline, but it's really solid now.
Season 2 AoS has been lights out, but Season 1 was so horrifically bad, I still hold a grudge against the showrunners for wasting my time for so many weeks. And I'll probably have to waste another week devising a season one guide, where I tell you what episodes are good, and important to following the season, and write summaries for the episodes to skip.
Arrow is pretty good once you get past the CW's penchant for having shows look like overly photoshopped supermodel showcases (and face it, the cast is pretty good looking, both genders). The main actor carries it well and the cast overall has decent chemistry.
I don't hold a grudge against actor/supermodels that can do a salmon ladder. Sometimes, the writers can stick in awesome snark, but usually not often enough. One of my problems with Arrow is that its basically cloning/coopting the Batman mythos.
Gotham is a pleasant surprise. It's quite good. And if you British cinema, you'll see Sean Pertwee as Alfred, one of my favorite British actors.
There are a (counting) gross of British actors that I think are measurably better that Pertwee, (most of them playing Americans on TV) but I do have a soft spot for him, in his limited roles, and that he's Jon Pertwee's (Doctor Who #3) kid.
He does quite well as Alfred, and I'd even argue he'd make a good choice for the movies as well, though he might be a bit young to play Alfred to an adult Bruce Wayne. The show overall again has a good cast with good chemistry. And it didn't have the shaky/cheesy start that SHIELD did, finding its footing right away in the pilot episode in my opinion.
My problem with Gotham is that I think the ideal Batman TV series needs to be TV-MA on a subscription cable network, and that DC doesn't have the guts to put out a truly artistic rendition, so they will destroy it with half-measures like Gotham. Its much like how corporations have destroyed Christmas as an enjoyable holiday. And Robin Lord Taylor (Penguin) is the only actor truly keeping the show afloat. It would be a mistake to introduce the Joker in the 1st or even 2nd season, but that show needs more than RLT to be worth watching. They can't carry that show with one-shot comic-like villains each week.
Its called steganography.
That's what Microsoft's response to one of the security bugs. And then they started bitching after Google produced an exploit based on that "trivial" bug.
And how do you prove they're working on the problem in a manner which will result in a quick resolution? Instead of hiring minimum wage flunkys to take calls and say "We're working hard on the problem. Its just a matter of weeks..".
But what gives Google the right to do what they're doing?
What right? The right for the general public to utilize computer products SAFE from thieves and infrastructure terrorism.
They're just as guilty as Microsoft when it comes to security problems and shitty insecure software. Why should they spend their money on announcing other people's flaws, rather than fixing their own?
They are guilty of the same security problems and shitty software. And they should be punished in the commercial markets the way as Microsoft. If they commit the same crime as Microsoft, they should suffer the same penalties. NOT be complicit in covering up competitors' crimes, because they're criminals too.
Especially when Microsoft already has fixed pending and just needs a bit more time to ensure they don't cause even worse problems?
Who honestly thinks that forcing someone to rush out a less-tested patch is a good idea, just because Google has a hard-on for playing the fake superhero?
Microsoft has not always been diligent in correcting security problems, and I'm sure they're more than willing to backslide. Just like once upon a time, you could count on Microsoft putting out reliable windows update patches, but now they drop the ball as when they changed their management and protocols last year.
Posting notices of critical security flaws after giving 90 days for a company to fix it are security researchers' way to tell CORPORATIONS how IMPORTANT it is to design and release secure products.
If you don't do it, marketing will say that security flaw X can't be fixed because too many customers depend on the "insecure" feature. And the COO will say, "why can't you reveal it one year later, so we don't have to hire 12 people to get a fix within 90 days? We can hire 3 people instead." Eventually, some jackass will say "Shoot the messenger! Its their fault bad guys can exploit our insecure product!" Meanwhile, customers and the internet community will be at the mercy of criminals, and critical infrastructure will be vulnerable to hostile, rogue governments.
No company has a RIGHT to jeopardize computer security to ensure a profit, with underqualified developers and marketing deadlines. If you don't let the market determine security's value, then it will be up to civil lawsuits.
Yet another clueless consumer who doesn't understand the nature of the computer security braying their pronouncement of what Google should do.
What's missing in the real world is a litigation avenue where (security) negligence by a (software) company can be address as a class action suit. Now picture companies like Target going bankrupt for their security miscalculation in court, rather than the business hit it took for being publicly embarrassed. Or picture a major bank going under, because of their security design flaw.
Or you can look at Google's actions as tailor made to address security flaws, while minimizing harm to companies and the world's consumers.
Some are deeper architectural problems that, even if an "easy" fix, have a whole ecosystem of software built around that wrong behavior..
Google, or the world, do not have an obligation to tolerate Microsoft's willingness to market a fatally flawed product because a whole industry "expects" to take advantage of an insecure feature. It is no different that a fatally flawed skyscraper design. When such a building or bridge comes about, the world doesn't require architects or engineers to keep quiet about a safety flaw, because people already use it. The owner/design company is required to produce an effective correction to the problem, or the building gets condemned. Otherwise, the company is liable to be sued for the deaths and injury that can be attributed to it when the flaw is finally manifested. Do we really want an industry where companies put out shoddy products that can avoid a bad result in 10-20 years, wait for that error to harm people, and then suffer no economic consequences because they no longer exist?
The sample exploit code is necessary because the corporate response after "I need more than 90 days" is "oh, its not a serious security bug".
Boo hoo. So the alternative is allow Microsoft's entire customer to be hacked at will, because Microsoft doesn't want to dedicate resources necessary to resolve a coding issue within 90 days? Security by obscurity.
I'd argue that Slashdot is a website with a national presence and has better topics to cover than a hack in some parent's basement, but apparently not.