True.
I'm currently working at a big bank that has poured hundreds of millions into Oracle for a flagship project that has way under delivered and is a couple of years overdue. The vast majority of their techs couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. I thank my lucky stars I'm not involved in that clusterfuck.
While I'm sure there's culpability in the Oregonian government for this, to hold Oracle blameless would be wrong.
There was once a time when Oracle was the right answer to the question "which database". Now, I'm pretty sure they're not the answer for anything.

I wouldn't mind you redundant, just one dimensional.
MIcrosoft, like many large companies, gets some things right and others wrong. Part of the art to being that kind of company is (a) understanding who exactly you're appealing to (could be more that one group), and (b) ensuring the products targeting (a) are self consistent and sensible.
Personally, I'm appreciating their Office for Mac suite and the recent tilt towards OSS. However I've been Windows free (at home) since before XP.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnp...

You must have missed the bit where I said I checked it myself. I shone a light down the socket but for the life of me couldn't see anything untowards. Even if I had, I doubt I have anything narrow enough to get down there and grab it.
I'm a bit nonplussed by some of the vehement reactions here though. If you don't see any value in the ecosystem (and that _is_ what you're buying with Apple), then just don't buy it. Personally I kind of like that there's a vendor that is happy to break with the past and champion design decisions they believe are for the best. May not always work out (though they've had some success with various interfaces) but at least they're happy to strike off in a new direction. I recently bought an iPhone SE and it will do me for another couple of years at least. As will the Jabra Revo phones I'm waiting for (yes, BT audio sucks but tbh on public transport I can't tell the difference, and now there'll be no more snagging of cables - yay).

I'll take a slight exception to the "really solid" descriptor of the headphone jack. I recently had an experience where my earbuds plug wasn't "locking in" properly, resulting in occasional channel loss and/or mic loss. I thought I had damaged it when the wire had recently got caught and the resulting tension caused a slight bend - or Si I thought. After doing my own checking, I gave up and went to the Apple Store. They found a tiny piece of fluff jammed right in to the back of the phone socket. The tech said he had a hard time removing it as the battery lies just beyond that and he didn't want to pierce it with the tool he used. Fluff removed, plug locks in, earbuds working fine.

None of which is to say that the lightning adapter is robust, it isn't. But it's smaller opening makes it less likely that shit will get jammed in it, that's for sure.

He's pointing out by example that the whole purpose of a public key is to be distributed to other parties, and that doing so is safe due to the inability* to infer the private key through factorisation. Bit flipping a properly formed key Kpub is highly likely to result in an easily factored "key" K'pub for which the private key K'priv can be trivially derived.

Haven't had mod points for years (no idea why) but if I did, you'd get them all. Thanks for making me truly laugh out loud.

For a great many years, anything that involved Windows.

https://info.lookout.com/rs/05...

Agreed. With the right search terms you don't even have to click through to the resulting page, you could just copy the magnet URL directly from the search summary.

Is that a legal opinion or a "common sense" one?
I don't have a clue what the law is on this matter and am genuinely interested.

:-)
At least it's not dog whistle click bait.
And I found the thinking around how the spectrum might be divided and re-prioritised dynamically to be mildly interesting.

It's a process. They've said they want industry to drive the standards. That requires consultation and review of responses. The document outlines a bunch of high level requirements where those are clear, and poses questions to respondents where it clearly hasn't formed a firm view.
Basically they have thrown up parts of a straw man and are seeking input.

From the relevant Fed page:

"Ââ30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements.

(a) Statement. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee is required to submit to the Commission a Statement describing its network security plans and related information, which shall be signed by a senior executive within the licensee's organization with personal knowledge of the security plans and practices within the licensee's organization. The Statement must contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
(1) Security Approach. A high-level, general description of the licensee's approach designed to safeguard the planned network's confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with respect to communications from:
(i) A device to the licensee's network;
(ii) One element of the licensee's network to another element on the licensee's network;
(iii) The licensee's network to another network; and
(iv) Device to device (with respect to telephone voice and messaging services).
(2) Cybersecurity Coordination. A high-level, general description of the licensee's anticipated approach to assessing and mitigating cyber risk induced by the presence of multiple participants in the band. This should include the high level approach taken toward ensuring consumer network confidentiality, integrity, and availability security principles, are to be protected in each of the following use cases:
(i) Communications between a wireless device and the licensee's network;
(ii) Communications within and between each licensee's network;
(iii) Communications between mobile devices that are under end-to-end control of the licensee; and
(iv) Communications between mobile devices that are not under the end-to-end control of the licensee;
(3) Cybersecurity Standards and Best Practices. A high-level description of relevant cybersecurity standards and practices to be employed, whether industry-recognized or related to some other identifiable approach;
(4) Participation With Standards Bodies, Industry-Led Organizations. A description of the extent to which the licensee participates with standards bodies or industry-led organizations pursuing the development or maintenance of emerging security standards and/or best practices;
(5) Other Security Approaches. The high-level identification of any other approaches to security, unique to the services and devices the licensee intends to offer and deploy; and
(6) Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-based information sharing.
(b) Timing. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee shall submit this Statement to the Commission within three years after grant of the license, but no later than six months prior to deployment.
(c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(i) Confidentiality. The protection of data from unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit.
(ii) Integrity. The protection against the unauthorized modification or destruction of information.
(iii) Availability. The accessibility and usability of a network upon demand."

Whoops. Forgot a key factor:

(PeckingOrderPosition(defendant) - PeckingOrderPosituon(judge))

where PeckingOrderPosition is zero based (lowest position).