Hmmmm.. Pretty sure it is a recursive acronym: Linux = "Linux Is Not UniX" Kind of like GNU = "GNU is Not Unix".
So you think she should NOT have a right to have naked pictures of her taken offline?
I am not sure that is reasonable. Just because they inspect packets, does not mean they can infer intent. If for example they found a packet that looked like a text message with the content "The OP is a go". How should they be required to respond to that?
Likewise, if they intercept packets that look like file headers and see a file named "Latest.Beiberific.POP.Song.Crap.alt.bin.mp3", but the content is someone pretending to be Tha Beebz, how should they react?
The only point I am making here, is that there is no way to automate the response to this in any reasonable fashion.
I thought the FCC classified them as "common carriers" now.
Also I thought wording under the CDA was that "Service Providers" were not liable for content posted by their users.
It sure seems like they would be covered either way.
Totally understood. The trick is: you can tune your own signal/noise. Its very handy and I get essentially all my news via Twitter these days.
Its all on Twitter man...
Maybe if you clicked on the link they provided that leads to the "Chumby platform" you would have been able to read all about them. That is what they are there for, to provide additional information for people who are not familiar with the hyperlinked term.
That seems like an entirely different thing than "Edge won't run without UAC enabled."
Funny, Edge seems to run just fine for me with UAC disabled.
Do you mean that you can't recommend it ENOUGH? I know these kind of corrections can seem pedantic, but the omission of a word in this case completely changes the meaning.
Maybe the difference lies in permission?
It seems like a better situation all around when you are not dependent on legal agreements and "may I look at this source please?". This also does not guarantee that your fix will be used (though it is quite likely to be).
What if you are a smaller company than Samsung? Maybe Microsoft will just ignore or outright deny requests to see the source code.
I think the ability to see code and make/publish changes to that code independent of permission to do so is an important right.
The point however is that in a closed source system, Samsung could not have found and fixed the bug themselves.
What is the deal here?
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.