Let's not forget the Cowbell++. It's like Rust and Java, except that it won't corrode your car, or spill your beans. It's a safe, secure language, backward and forward compatible with Rock, Hard Rock, 70's Rock, and even Rock'n'Roll.

When writing in Cowbell++, there's no possible problem that can't be solved by adding more. It's really the ideal of the fictional programming languages.

I'm willing to bet that some executive, somewhere, was able to meet and exceed his KPIs for IT cost, resulting in a bonus. The most important thing is that the executives get paid for continuing the status quo.

Whether said executive still works at the company or has moved on to another company misses the point: the circumstances which enabled the hack were created by the manner in which the company rewarded cost control, rather than security . Security is not quantifiable; no one was ever rewarded for the hacks that didn't happen. The only question remaining is if the board has enough sanity to hire a CEO who won't incentivize financial performance at the expense of security.

The difference depends on context, of course.

Generally speaking there are several cases to consider:

(1) Site requires agreeing on terms of service before browser can access content. In this case, scraping is a clear violation.

(2) Site terms of service forbid scraping content, but human visitors can view content and ...
(2a) site takes technical measures to exclude bots. In this case scraping is a no-no, but for a different reason: it violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
(2b) site takes no technical measures to exclude bots. In this case, the answer is unclear, and may depend on the specific jurisdiction (e.g. circuit court).

(3) Site has a robots.txt file and ...
(3a) robots.txt allows scraping. In this case, even if the terms of service forbid scraping, the permission given here helps the scraper's defense.
(3b) robots.txt forbids scraping. In this case obeying robots.txt isn't in itself legally mandatory, but it may affect your case if the site takes other anti-scraping measures.

I bought one of their mattress toppers for Burning Man figuring that it's much more efficient to chill a bed than chill a space. However, setting the thing up required an internet connection. By using my phone as a hotspot, I was just barely able to bridge the gap so the mattress would connect to the internet. But then it also required a Bluetooth connection from the same phone to the bed, to actually turn it on, and the bridging-the-gap location was just outside Bluetooth range. What a completely frustrating, overengineered piece of crap. How about a simple couple of buttons to set the temperature?

Not *explicitly*. Offering such a database would be an invitation for people to look at the whole data broker industry. So what you, as a databroker who tracks and piegeonholes every human being who uses the Internet to a fare-the-well, do to tap into the market for lists of gullible yokels? You offer your customer, literally anyone with money, the ability to zero in on the gullible by choosing appropriate proxies.

For example, you can get a list of everyone who has searched for "purchasing real estate with no money down". Sad people who buy colloidal silver and herbal male enhancement products. People who buy terrible crypto assets like NFTs and memecoins. Nutters who spend a lot of time on conspiracy theory sites.

It's kind of like doxxing someone. You might not be able to find out directly that John Doe lives on Maple St and works for ACME services, but you can piece it together by the traces he leaves online. Only you do it to populations wholesale.

I don't see any way competitors will be able to land people on the moon by 2027. I'm not convinced space x can do it either. But reopening the contract at this late stage is a little strange politically. All it will do is delay it further and ultimately cost more. Which may actually be fine for SpaceX who will certainly keep the contract.

You mean the CCP doesn't encourage or otherwise condone thus sort of crime by criminal gangs? Not quite sure what you're getting at.

wait a week or two and the details will change completely.

Trump is nothing if not mercurial. His fans will tell you he's playing 11 dimensional chess... I have my doubts, but let's say that's true. The problem is that when it comes to the economy it's not chess. It's more like basketball, and the President is the point guard calling plays, except the play being called keeps changing before the players can execute the last call. It's a tough time to be running a business, you can't plan out more than a couple of weeks.

Nope. Almost certainly it was not.

Wait what? Where did you get that from? The SD card was encrypted with luks and the computer ran Linux.

No that's not correct. The key is generated and burned into the firmware. Scott Manley covered that in depth. They had to recover the flash chip from the wrecked camera as well as the SD card.

They didn't. It was all in the camera firmware. But encrypting it at all is kind of silly.

Actually they didn't have the key. It was in a flash chip on the computer board that had to be removed and placed in a working camera from the manufacturer and then it was able to read the card. It's beyond me why they felt the need to run a fully encrypted file system on an SD card inside of a hermetically sealed camera unit that would normally never be opened by any customer. Companies have strange ideas about preserving their trade secrets I guess. Like instrument makers that require hardware keys for their software. Surely a million dollar instrument is a good enough hardware key!

Near as I could tell the idea that this was something from space originated from a random Twitter post by someone who claimed to know someone who was on the flight (but obviously not in the cockpit). Scott Manley covered this pretty thoroughly on his space oriented YouTube channel. But the plane definitely hit something and if it had been hit in slightly a different spot it might have killed a pilot. So serious stuff.

Right, the economist refer to this as "externality". Fossil fuels aren't cheap, if you factor in the costs that people using them transfer to third parties. Theoretically, if the true cost of using fossil fuels were factored into every pound of coal or gallon of gasoline consumed, then we would use *exactly the right amount* of fossil fuels. Probably not zero, but not as much as we do when we pretend pollution isn't a cost.