She is his ex-wife.
She is his ex-wife.
If retrieving a copy of an email while leaving the original intact creates "no meaningful interference" with the account holder's "possessory interest" of that email, how long before this ruling is used as a defence against the RIAA and MPAA's copyright infringement efforts?
Since making a copy of a movie does not create a meaningful interference with the account holder's possessory interest of the movie, surely it can't be worth all those lawsuits?
Here in South Africa, part of the documentation required when effecting a property transfer is an Electrical Compliance Certificate, and not every electrician is licensed to issue them. The purpose is to cover this exact situation, where the homeowner installed their own connections which may not be up to code. If the property has an electric fence, that requires a separate certificate as well. And an etymological certificate is required to ensure that the purchaser isn't receiving a home filled with wood borers or termites.
There may be other compliance certificates required, these are the 3 I've encountered personally.
I would argue for combining 3 and 4 together. And the only difference between 1 and 2 should be a pricing discount for students.
The alternative would be to get rid of plans entirely, and just check off what products/services you want, and pay for those.
Interestingly, Microsoft also collects telemetry related to Windows usage, but then it's labelled spyware.
When Google uses telemetry and correlation to identify that the people viewing cert details also typically make use of developer tools, it's called cleaning up 'yet another option [that] just adds to the confusion for end users'.
When Microsoft uses telemetry and correlation to reposition OS features, it's called spyware that sends all your documents to the NSA.
Star Wars Rogue One was also the movie which made me realise how much the 3D glasses affect the colour of the picture. There were lots of scenes that looked very dull and dark - taking the glasses off for a moment, the colours were much brighter and "normal". I've now started noticing that in other 3D movies as well... surely the studios should master the 3D videos with brighter/lighter colours to compensate for the darkening of the glasses?
I wouldn't call for 3D cinema to go though, I enjoy watching movies in 3D at the cinema... but as the summary/article states, despite having a 3D capable TV at home for 2.5 years, I think we've watched a total of 4 movies in 3D on it, despite havingÂthe option to watch many more in 3D.
We watched it with our 7yo daughter, who has played the game once or twice when I showed it to her, but is nowhere near an addict. She's been waiting for this moving for months, purely based on the trailers and implied entertainment value, and not at all because of the game itself.
I suspect the 9 month marketing onslaught was to ensure that the movie would be watched by people who haven't played the game, and it clearly worked, having opened at #1. While Angry Birds has been a very popular game across all mobile platforms for a few years now, there's no way they could rely purely on their gamers to support the movie and allow it to be a huge success.
In fact, after watching the movie, I introduced the game to my daughter again, and she still hasn't really taken to it. While I'm sure they got a huge number of new installs after people watched the movie, I'd be surprised if their long-term player base increases in line with the movies success. Just because the movie is based on a game doesn't mean it's aimed only at the gamers.
It adds nothing of value over the browser based solution because that's exactly what it is. This "desktop client" is a wrapper around an embedded browser that launches WhatsApp Web by default. From the looks of it, it's Chrome Embedded Framework that's been used. I'm guessing they chose that route to make it easier to support both Windows and OSX without much difficulty, but it does raise the question of how they plan to handle updates and patches to the Chrome core... while they might not need any new features that get added, they would definitely need to keep up to date with security patches, even if it's a single-purpose browser.
It should be trivially easy to do the key exchange without WhatsApp being able to intercept the keys, even though they are relaying them between the two parties.*
Assume Alice and Bob both use WhatsApp. Each generates a certificate with a private and public key. They publish their public keys via some directory service. Alice wants to chat to Bob securely. They currently don't have a relationship set up between them. So Alice looks up Bob's public key, and generates a random encryption key to be used for chatting with Bob. She encrypts this key with Bob's public key and sends this encrypted key to Bob over WhatsApp. Only Bob can decrypt this because only Bob has the private key - WhatsApp doesn't. Bob can either then use the same key to send messages to Alice, or he can repeat the process, so that even if one key is exposed somehow, only one half of the conversation can be decrypted.
Yes, WhatsApp's app must ultimately be trusted to be storing the private keys securely and not leaking them back to WhatsApp somehow, but if they're going to the trouble of implementing end-to-end encryption, then entire point is that they want to be able to simply auto-respond to any law enforcement requests with 'We simply cannot decrypt the messages even if we want to." Given that WhatsApp already has been encrypting messages between client and server for some time now before this, it doesn't make sense for them to implement such an elaborate encryption scheme and then leave a backdoor in it, which will inevitably be discovered, either by a security researcher or when they give in to a law enforcement request.
* I haven't actually read up on how WhatsApp is doing their key exchange, so they may be doing exactly this.
This morning, I saw it on my phone in my darkened bedroom, and it was clearly blue and brown. Just now, I opened the Washington Post link on my 24" screen in a sunlit room, and it was clearly white and gold. I then found the link that I had seen on my phone this morning (not Washington Post, so I wanted to confirm that it just wasn't two different pictures that I was looking at), opened it up, and it was white and gold there too. Went back to my bedroom and closed the curtains, and it remained white and gold for a bit, but after I left the room (after my eyes had adjusted a bit to the darkness), it was blue and brown again. The picture on the Washington Post was also now blue and brown. Now that my eyes have adjusted to the sunlit room again (and the white Slashdot background), I switch back to the Washington Post tab, and it's white and gold again. My wife (who's now gotten fed up with following me around to look at this picture under different lighting conditions) has had pretty much the same experience as me.
So it appears to be linked to the lighting conditions that your eyes are adjusted to when seeing the image initially... even after they've adjusted to the ambient light, the brain appears to stick to the image it created initially.
No, he admitted no such thing. He said that if you had so many issues getting a printer to install, it's because your IT department is incompetent and set up the infrastructure poorly, not that you need to have a competent IT professional just to install a printer on Windows.
First page is nothing... how about one story between original and dupe?
Maybe they genuinely believe people shouldn't duplicate their functionality, and that they should try to innovate on their own?
I guess it's fine when they do it, but not when others do it to them.
Except MS has already been held responsible for their actions (from over 10 years ago), and all indications are that the company has changed drastically for the better in the past few years - stability- and security-wise.
Meanwhile, Apple is trying to drive all their competitors out of business not by putting out better products and competing on merit, but by abusing the legal system due to their vast cash reserves with ridiculous "rounded corner rectangle" design patents.
MS did some bad stuff a long time ago. They have paid for it (literally), and they are no longer the same company they were back then. Apple is doing bad stuff right now, yet all indications are that for the next 20 years we'll still be constantly reminded of Microsoft's already-paid-for behaviour from the 90s, but Apple will still be lauded as a magical untouchable company despite their unpaid-for behaviour from today.
Your analogies are quite ridiculous, and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.