It's quite unethical for them to jump in on one candidate's bandwagon, but there seems to be -- at least not yet -- no evidence of actions taken based on this. It does, however, make you wonder what a candidate could do if they had access to statistical data from Facebook and/or Whatsapp. And maybe even *gulp* Google's private stashes of statistics.
Conspiracy theory clap trap.
Whenever I see this, I have to say: conspiracy theories are theories only as long as they're not proven to be true. Granted, the OP's assumption that the "media is trying to hide serious corruption" is too wide to be ever really proven to be true, but if it was narrowed down to for example, "some of the major media outlets have been conspiring with...", then it could be shown to be true.
We know, after all, that Mrs. Clinton did receive debate questions beforehand, which alone would satisfy this. However, there have been media outlets that have reported it, which means that in the form OP mentioned it, the "conspiracy" would not be true. The latter would.
We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries.
[...] If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board.
[...] I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs.
These attempts at character assassination have been pretty damn thoroughly debunked by Wikileaks. There's also a very interesting Reddit thread going on that links the paedophilia allegations to this guy, who also happens to be helping out Hillary Clinton.
You can start measuring them in cubic inches now.
It's not just a few CAs, it's the whole system. The CA system is built on trust and there has been no trust left in the system in years. The whole idea of encrypted communications between web browsers and web servers needs to be reworked and somehow decentralized so that rogue CAs will eventually die out.
There's also ecosystem vs. ecosystem, and Android-based phone manufacturers obviously differentiate their products' Android installations and thus provide differing user experiences.
When you serve a web page, the HTML markup and JavaScript is only part of the output the server generates. This output, including the markup and actual text/image content, is served to the people visiting a website, not the code that generates the output.
By having to license the output, everyone visiting a web page would have full commercial rights to the web page's content. Imagine your web page contained a novel text: anyone visiting that page could grab that novel and sell it under a GPL license. This was the issue I was replying to, and said it was not so; the output of a program licensed under GPL is not automatically licensed under GPL also.
So if I completely misunderstood your joke, please correct me. But it makes no sense to me as it is because the source code of a website and the output of that code are two completely different things.
If you share your website's full backend source on every download, you're doing something terribly wrong.
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
They don't deserve anything. They can make their own success, however, by selling books, coffee mugs and whatnot. Or sell nothing, go to work and still do it.
I'm probably not the most objective voice around this topic because I have great negative feelings toward advertisers in general.
That would be akin to saying that every web page served from a server using GPLv2 licensed Linux kernel would automatically be licensed under the same license. Or that every program compiled using a GPL licensed compilers would automatically be licensed under GPL, too. The makers of many popular GPL-licensed programs also alleviate "license scaremongering" by the use of additional permissions.
Your comment was an obvious joke, but it's not to say that many people *do*, erroneously, think like that.
I don't like the whole idea of monetizing your "important messages to the public". If you have something truly intelligent and important to say, you'll find a way to say it without sucking the teats of ad companies trying to sell garbage to idiots. I agree that too much power is being consolidated under the Google umbrella, but that's a whole different story.
I've used a lot of Android devices, and still use them with my current Galaxy S5 running CM13. It's obvious that despite all Apple's shortcomings in its walled garden approach, their ecosystem is a lot more unified and provides a consistent user experience compared to Android-based phone manufacturers. Among Android devices, I have to say Samsung's blend of Android is definitely one of the worst. The UI is broken, inconsistent garbage and it takes a very long time to turn off all the on-by-default annoyances that the phone keeps reminding of all the time. Simple things like connecting to a wifi hotspot is a pain in the ass if you have a "recognized" network in the range, too.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
