First you'd have to find an actual person at Google.
As others have pointed out, they [Google] routinely ignore support requests and a real person almost never answers the support line. Some might think that this is a bad thing, but actually there's a silver lining. If you cannot call Google or contact support to reset your account then it's likely that an attacker will also fail to get through. Combined with the fact that no domain registrar is going to reassign gmail.com to some random caller and you actually have a fairly decent security situation. Hard to social engineer due to poor customer service and practically impossible to get the gmail.com domain MX record reassigned, especially over the phone.
Doesn't Google share at least part of the blame here for not allowing users to opt-out of automatic updates once an extension is installed? As the article points out, it's precisely this ability to automatically "push update" thousands or tens of thousands of users without recourse, combined with lax enforcement by Google of update rules, that makes this situation attractive to the advertisers. Why not instead allow users to decide what the update policy will be on their device, as in Firefox?
The number of ways of killing someone are limited only to your creativity.
That didn't seem to help Wile E Coyote, somehow the Road Runner always got away.
2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy.
Too bad Obama didn't get that memo. Instead, he wasted precious time on disastrous health care reforms, idiotic foreign policies (aka the "Russian Reset"), inappropriate forays into racially charged domestic news events and a host of other non issues that were either much less important than the worst economy in a generation or simply not important at all. The President should have been focused on the economy from day one in 2008, but instead he took his eye off the ball and fiddled while Rome burned. He was far more interested in ramming through health care reforms quickly, during the brief period of time that his party controlled Congress, regardless of how crude or ill considered, than he was about plight of the American middle class. Obama will be remembered by future generations as the President who presided over the destruction of the middle class, paralyzed by his own ineptitude and blinded by delusions of grandeur. The only consolation is that the people who voted for him, the young, will live long enough to regret it as they face diminished prospects and a bruising fall down the economic ladder climbed in previous generations by their parents and grandparents.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the point of a public debate.
Given the state of public education and debate in the United States today, it's not difficult to see how or why many Americans have a great number and variety of misunderstandings concerning not just debate, but civics and even basic science too. It's quite discouraging actually.
As long as we're clear that your right to deliberately poison the acoustic spectrum ends at your property-line
The range on these is about 120 feet, or 140 feet without the baffle, so In a large free standing store with a parking lot or a private mall, it would not be difficult to keep the audible range within the property boundaries. As for the notice, I doubt that it would a problem. Notices are generally required only when the area is under surveillance and video or audio are being recorded and even then not all places require that.
Say the company buys a $10,000 computer and estimates it will be worth $1000 in 5 years time, it then takes the remaining $9000 and divides it by 5 years, which gives $1800 per year.
I'm no accountant, but I don't remember the depreciation schedule for computers being quite that generous. I think that you would probably have to spread it out over more than 5 years, at least here in the United States.
You may have noticed that persons under 25 are the main customers of that branch of McDonald's.
Perhaps, but I wonder how much they're really spending. For example, here in the United States the Six Flags corporation, which operates themed parks around the country, used to market heavily to teenagers until they realized three things. First, unruly teenagers scare away families and especially families with young children. Second, they tend to break things. Third and finally, they don't spend as much as you might think. In response to these realizations, they reduced the marketing to teenagers, kicked out the troublemakers and their profits improved. Coincidence? I think not.
We have those abominations here and let me tell you, being over 25 or even over 35 is no guarantee you won't hear them.
You're free to take your business elsewhere. I believe that's why they call it a free market economy.
Ban the mosquitoes, not the kids.
It's called private property and the police cannot seem to be bothered with "low priority" calls these days. Indeed, their priority on a loitering complaint, short of rioting and looting, is generally somewhere between barely interested and not their problem. What's a business owner to do about unruly packs of young people driving away paying customers when banning them from the premises is either not practical or not enforceable as a matter of law?
This system will self-destruct in five minutes.