Esto. Necessitan los dos.

You're assuming that he isn't telling them.

You're absolutely correct. At some point, you have to accept a certain level of risk. It reminds me of a quote from Adm. Nelson

"A ship at port is a safe ship; but that is not what sailing ships are for."

And wear a funny hat?

It sounds like a classic setup where they wanted a function the vendor could provide, but didn't bother to follow the proper IT processes to get it implemented. So they ended up with a consumer grade desktop running XP(!) on their network storing this junk on probably a single sata disk. His exposition about bureaucracy sounds like equal parts exasperation and penitence.

This. I'ts important to understand your policy. You can purchase a policy that covers that situation, but it will cost more.

If you're buying insurance to cover security breaches, your most likely risk is that it happens from some level of negligence (negligence being the legal meaning), a poorly crafted firewall ruleset, or an unpatched server, etc. So it makes sense to purchase a policy that covers negligence. It will be more expensive; but a policy that doesn't cover negligence is probably not very useful.

Fixed wing commercial pilot and flight instructor here. See and Avoid is an important concept and it's everybody's responsibility. But, it's hard enough to see full sized airplanes. Birds and small drones can appear very quickly with no time to react. The odds are that they would hit somewhere on the airframe and not right through the windshield, but... It's a risk I don't want to have. It's a risk you don't want to have if you're on board my aircraft. And whether they realize it or not, it's a risk the drone flyer doesn't want to have.

The "No Fly" zones they describe in the link cover only the largest airports in the nation. There are many more that have significant amounts of traffic. Atlanta isn't even on their list, much less smaller but very busy airports like Peachtree DeKalb, or the very small but very busy Grand Canyon airport. The list goes on and on.

What they're doing with those No Fly zones is a good thing, but it's not comprehensive, and it's proprietary to their devices.

I honestly don't mean this to be flippant, but have you ever lost somebody close to you? Lost somebody semi-close?

There were hundreds of such tragedies on that airplane, with no closure. People both rational and irrational are wondering what happened to the most important people in their lives.

In addition to the air safety implications of the investigation, that needs to be respected. Eventually, yes, we'll just need to move on and face the fact that we won't ever know what happened, but it's not as easy as "been a year, cut off the money and stop caring."

MLC is very much alive, and just as problematic and expensive as ever.

I love the platform operationally. The licensing sucks in every way.

Wish I had mod points for you.

I generally agree with you. Having said that, is it any more ridiculous a proposition that a chimp has personhood than a corporation?

The logical argument would be that the coporation makes more sense because it is comprised of people. The logical response to that is "Then don't they already have personhood?"

Sorry for running the thread off the rails that way.

I had parents, am white, have a college degree and make a similar income. I don't see the cops as pigs and I think it's silly to believe that the police force changes quickly enough to be the enforcement side of any particular regime. I think it's much more basic and understandable than that.

The police do a dangerous job and over time the losses and realized risks add up until they feel threatened. They respond to the threat in a perfectly human manner; they get aggressive. Control the situation. Drive the situation. So they're more likely now than ever to use the tazer/mace/gun, etc.

The effect of this over time is that we citizens feel threatened. So how do we respond? The same way! With aggression. If you yell at me and don't give me a chance to explain anything, ask what's going on, even process what you're telling me before you arm bar me into the ground and drive your knee into my neck, I'm going to respond in a manner that likely doesn't match what the police want me to do.

This is normal human behavior and escalates as the situation escalates. In the middle of the night, even if you knock and announce loudly that you're the police, if you don't give me time to realize that I just heard a voice saying they were the cops, to get up, put on a robe, tell my wife and daughter to relax it'll be okay, shut the dog in a room, look out the peephole to verify that you actually are the cops, etc., before you knock the door in, throw a flashbang, storm the house with M4s and bright lights, etc. I'm likely to respond angrily and without thought. I'm simply reacting at that point, and it's your (cops) fault, not mine for creating that situation. The only person who would act in a measured and thoughtful manner at that point is the criminal who expected such an encounter.

If there is a societal conflict between the populous and the police, one side must surrender to win, and our traditional view of society in this nation suggests that it should be the cops who back down.

That's not what anybody is saying, and it's disingenuous to say that it is.

This study shouldn't be any great shock to anybody; that life is more complicated than a single cause for something. Some people are fat because they live a fat lifestyle. Some are fat because of their genetic makeup. Some are fat for a combination of them. Some people will have to put more effort into staying thin than others. This study suggests that these microbes are one factor.

The OP is making a statement that you completely confirmed: people are easily willing to bash and shame others. The second sentence of your post is the perfect example of using the worst possible scenario to describe everybody who exhibits a particular "fault". So tell me, what is the line of demarcation? Where is the fat line? What weight is 1lb more than the normal reasonable person and defines the lazy slovenly glutton you describe?

What about smokers? Do they suck as people too? Drinkers? What about people who curse? Are religious fanatics ok (that could go either way with you, I'd guess)? Sex addicts? How about people who are thin but can't run very fast? Are they lazy, too? Tell us, how are all of these people failures, too? And what about people with more or less intelligence: are the more intellectual people simply harder workers and the less intelligent just lazy?

Hmm, how about beautiful people vs the rest of us?

Are you perfect? And if not, is it because you're lazy?

Of course, there are lots of salacious possibilities, but also a lot of quite ordinary.

It would be cool to have something like this of my wife and I or my family every few years.

Yes.

Dogfighting hasn't been important for a while because none of the top tier militaries have squared off against each other. U.S. vs Iraq was never going to produce a serious air war. Neither would U.S. vs Iran, or North Korea, etc.

But, if the U.S. and Russia ever squared off, you would see dogfighting. Our fighters would try to eliminate their close support and ground attack aircraft. They would send fighters to attack ours. Both would send fighters after each other to suppress them.

The asymmetrical nature of modern wars has kept it from happening, but we would be foolish to ignore that component of air superiority just because we haven't needed it in 40 years. After all, who were we fighting back then? Oh yeah, Russia by proxy.