CLOUD.
Not "your" [local] library. The cloud...which in the case of iTunes is not dedicated to you, but is merely keyed against what you have purchased.
If you want to keep it, keep it downloaded. And if you want it in the âoecloudâ, but it in an unmanaged cloud not dedicated to licensed media delivery.
(And yes, Apple should, at a minimum, have offered an immediate full refund.)
Yes, they did need to "renew" it in the new HR system; use whatever word you like...that is the word the article used. Renew, enter, update â" whatever it was, it wasn't done, and his contract was incorrectly terminated.
A human being forgot to renew his contract in the new HR system.
"His firm was going through changes, both in terms of the systems it used and the people it employed.
His original manager had been recently laid off and sent to work from home for the rest of his time at the firm and in that period he had not renewed Mr Diallo's contract in the new system."
And the problem was sorted out (too long, too faceless, perhaps), and he was allowed back to work.
It's so much bullshit, because it is a damage-control response to the CA issue only.
The problem -- of which they are deeply and keenly aware -- is MUCH larger than just CA, and has existed this way, intentionally, for YEARS.
This is a farcical non-response, though some of the measures they are now forced to take will indeed partially address the broader issues.
Also based on 6 seconds of audio and nothing else, doesnâ(TM)t rule out an attack or deliberate emplacement for a particular purpose, and doesnâ(TM)t change the outcome.
Neo-Nazi charged with terrorism in attempt to wreck Amtrak train, complaint says
A white man who was involved with neo-Nazi groups and who attended a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville has been charged with terrorism for attempting to wreck an Amtrak train, according to a criminal complaint filed in US District Court.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09...
I also made a helpful graphic for determining when something is "terrorism":
The question, as always, is whether the good outweighs the bad.
If we could somehow create magical impenetrable *physical* fortresses that cannot be opened or accessed by the duly-empowered law enforcement and judicial powers of a democratic society, would we say that's just the way it is?
Or would we have a discussion about it on the context of public good and the rule of law?
There is no one "right" answer to a question like this save the ones we collectively and imperfectly come to as a society. Absolutist assertions that it is either unbreakable, impenetrable encryption for all, or nothing, are false.
I wrote this on an earlier matter:
Apple believes it is protecting freedom. It's wrong. Here's why:
When you can subdivide that finite number into meaninglessness, and any fractional amount can translate at any arbitrary value into conventional currency based on some exchange rate, the fact that it is "finite" and "X amount have been mined" means nothing (including being "inflation proof", which it isn't).
I may use pyramid loosely; no, it's not a pyramid scheme nor a Ponzi scheme in the very strictest sense of those words. But it definitely is in the sense that a very small number of creators and/or early adopters of these schemes/"currencies" will benefit the most, to an inordinate degree. That, and they definitely benefit from new "recruits"...
...because that's exactly what Bitcoin is. A pyramid.
An investment, but worse than any stock, because it's an investment in nothing.
And yes, it's also a "cryptocurrency" -- congratulations. Blockchain!
Subject says it all.
(And yes, I read the paragraph saying there are no sources, as if this somehow represents original research.)
Important to understand:
Includes what is purported to be an internal survey at Google:
Yes, "debunked" here:
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
