Your enterprise networks gets crashed by a [broken?] device that scans for availabe wireless networks?
Looks like your enterprise network has some very serious issues you'll want to look into asap!
Not, crappy security is not better that no security. When users know there's no security, they may be slightly cautious. If they belive there's security in place, they might let their guard down, so this false sensation of security is actually a bad thing.
Please explain how your bank account is any more real.
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
No need to - they are an advertising company.
That just inocent lobbying, companies showing their support for democracy. I hope you're not implying that it's something like bribery, are you?
Simply put, having seen the arc of technology advance over the last 30+ years, I still don't trust an automated driver system with my safety. PERIOD.
Why? How many plane accidents have been computer error and how many human error, in those 30 years?
Remember, plane pilots are well trained professinals. Car drivers, just about any random person you can find. So the ratio would be even more inclined towards human-error in car accidents.
Finally, would you rather trust a stranger than a specialized machine?
The problem is that you confuse manual controls and manual control inputs. What type of control a person or computer uses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mind making the decisions about what inputs to make. Computers are yet to be sophisticated to handle many situations as well has humans do.
Some humans. A huge proportion of mankind don't know how to drive. I don't. Most of my friends don't. Kids and handicaped people can't, legally speaking.
I'd rather have automated cars that can move untrained people, children and handicaped around, than have error-prone stragers do it (eg: buses).
Would you rather trust a stranger than a machine?
And then, let's not forget the traffic factor. I live in an area of my city (Buenos Aires), where it's faster to walk 20 blocks than take a bus or cab (about twice as fast, btw). On one hand, because there's a stupid amount of peolpe moving around here, but on second hand, it's because they're awfully disorganized and inefficient. They each want the shortest route, and end up clogging everything instead of coordinating for greater overall efficiency. Humans simply can't do that. And generally, wouldn't if they could either.
On the upside:
Transport companies will benefit.
Transportation cost will drop (though the companies may keep the difference instead of translating it to the ser).
People who travel a lot will benefit from a more pleasant experience.
Products from other regions will have less net cost.
Traffic jams will be reduced greately.
On the downside:
Car manufacturers will adapt and survive.
Insurance companies will suffer a lot of drop in income.
Mechanics will get a drop in amount of work (especially in regions with lots of accidents).
Drivers will need to move on to something else.
However, people move on from certain jobs every time we have a breakthrough - keeping the jobs around is something that we all pay as a society. I'd much rather pay to retrain those people into something else (at their choosing?), than actually have them keep a job which we'll all by paying for, indirectly.
(Replying to self) Many times a taxi customer needs to make a train/bus, will a GoogleTaxi know that? I have a perfect record getting people to the stations, sometimes needing to cut off a departing bus, or running up to a train to keep the doors from closing. An autonomous cab cannot do that (yet?).
If we had only self-driving cars, there would be no need for this. The cab would know the exact amount of time (because it can be linked to all the other cars and therefore, know the traffic) needed to get to the plane/train, and be there on time.
If the human didn't get onto the cab in time, then tough luck for him.
We'll replace the humans in the long run anyway.
I'm not a Linux kernel dev (though have lots of user-mode Linux/Unix experience), but my understanding of that world is "we'll change anything and everything if and whenever we feel like it, and it's up to the rest of the world to keep up with those changes". So your example, ironically, would apply much more to a Linux driver sample than it would a Windows driver sample.
Linux will change their ABI if necesary, or interal APIs, but not external APIs.
The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.
More interesting for windows users maybe, but not for people who don't have any windows boxes at home. But for linux users, it's pretty useless.
In truth, they offered a windows-centric feature, but managed to label it as available for all platforms. If it's not available for non-windows users, then it's doesn't really "support linux".
So the real functionality is only there if you have any access to Windows hosts, otherwise, it's just a matter of wating.
It's a nice trick to be able to claim "supports linux" without actually making it all work on linux.
In this particular scenario, it looks like the Russian politician is the one who's waging war. And you don't get to vote for Russian presidents.
The average person does not do this sort of pirating. The average person heads over to thepiratebay.org and downloads the file that somebody else got by cracking the DRM implementation.
Or latinamerica. Or asia. My guess is that over 50% of the world actually pirates their stuff.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
