Fortunately for the suspect, arming a robot isn't a criminal offence or they'd probably charge him for it.
... the ordinary mousetrap is humane, effective, reusable, and available in multiple sizes. They kill instantly; you'll never find a mousetrap with a live rodent wiggling around in it.
Just don't try to use mouse traps on rats. In my last house I discovered we had rats when the mouse traps started to disappear. I had to anchor the things and then add some rat traps.
It would've saved a lot of grief if I could have allowed my cats into the basement of that place.
That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.
It's a stretch, but with the kind of sentence that hackers tend to face (10x longer than the average rapist is typical, I believe), it's plausible enough to be worth following. Assuming he mounted a defense instead of pleading to something lesser.
But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.
And if, as part of that engineering effort, someone at a high level was dumb enough to put into writing something to the effect of "yeah, we realize there are issues but we're authorizing anyone with a T-Mobile phone to access any URL with 'speedtest' in it for any purpose they like"... ?
I personally doubt anyone was that dumb, but at the same time this wasn't an accident or the actions of a rogue employee. There's gonna be a chain of decision making inside the carrier to make this happen, and if the kid wants/needs to fight it that's where he needs to dig, or at least threaten to dig.
If you want to argue this guy wouldn't be caught you'd need to explain why this guy's bypass of the security measures in place is somehow different to anyone elses.
The simplest argument is that it's because T-Mobile intentionally engineered their network so requests to speedtest URLs bypass all their security measures.
He's probably still breaking the law given how the laws are tilted toward the carriers, but whether T-Mobile wants all the details and history of their speed test hacking to be dug up in discovery and splashed all over the court records is doubtful.
My (limited) understanding is that material on the moon tends to more "mixed" and less layered (also, see above comment about stratification), making mining less efficient.
True, we'd be hunting for chunks rather than veins. On the other hand, digging should be easier, assuming we're cool with strip mining the Moon.
Asteroid mining seems like more bang for the buck in the long term, especially if you're going after specific materials, but I have a feeling that in order to pull it off successfully we'll need substantial infrastructure in space first.
After all, Moon is made basically of the same material that the Earth was formed with.
Slightly more precise, the Moon is made out of Earth's crust, so primarily consists of the lighter materials.
What a happy coincidence... the Moon is made from exactly the part of the Earth that humans are most familiar with exploiting.
Why is Apple doing this, really?
Courage. Because wireless is the way to go.
Just don't ask about that wireless charging stuff...
... about 7 billion people find themselves in agreement with the Pentagon chiefs...
But, not far in the future - many of us will see it, if we don't kill ourselves off first, all manual labor will be automated.
Manual labour in controlled and/or homogeneous environments will be automated, yes. Factories, warehouses, farms, transport, etc are all to some degree or another fairly good candidates for this.
Fixing stuff that's broken, though, will remain the domain of humans for a long time. We simply have too much infrastructure that would need to be heavily rebuilt to make it robot-repairable.
It won't be enough jobs for the number of people, but manual labour isn't going away in our lifetime.
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
Personally, I think it was pretty clever scheme the Irish were running.... attract businesses with what looks like an incredibly low tax rate, wait until the EU blows a gasket, and then (reluctantly, without looking like the bad guy) cash in bigtime.
You were here in the 90s, Mr. 8 digit user ID? Because I was, and no, it was never this bad in the 90s. There was none of this crap. Yes, this is my first time logging in in about 10 years, and I did it just because this article was about the dumbest thing I've seen here, and I had to point and laugh. Seriously.
They literally keep me from having to click a link in many instances by giving me the information I need within the first part of the results.
Well, that raises an interesting question... if the information in an article is so lean that a computer algorithm can boil it down into a trivial amount of text, then is the article really a creative work that's worthy of copyright protection? And would Google's algorithm be considered a transformative fair use (or fair dealing, or whatever the EU standard is)?
Why would they bother?
To break the argument.
These sorts of laws are based on the premise that Google is taking something for free and the news sources get nothing back. That's obviously a false premise, but that doesn't seem to be getting through to the people that matter and even making an example of entire countries doesn't seem to be enough to make the problem go away.
So, play hardball; if the news sources think their content is worth something, maybe Google's aggregation and traffic services should be worth something. Possibly more.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!