If your paper confirms climate change, you are more likely to get funding.
If your paper disproves it you get a Nobel prize.
I remember the antitrust trial of the 90s well. Yes, the judge said they should be broken up. The Bush took office and the whole matter was dropped. Nothing happened to them. Nothing's ever happened to them in the US.
The only place they've had any trouble is over in Europe. That means they can do whatever they want to American customers, they just have to watch themselves in the EU market. It's not at all unusual for companies to have different products for different markets and treat customers in different markets differently.
In case you haven't noticed, it's starting to happen. So far it's a small effect compared to coal mine fires, but it's there, and increasing.
If you're including recent figures, then you need to figure in that oceanic pollution is disrupting the life of plankton, which produce most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. I doubt that the figures are recent enough to reflect the recent plankton die-offs, but expect the Oxygen levels of the atmosphere to take a sharp dip over the next few centuries. (it's a pretty slow cycle.)
PHP? It's been my impression that right there you have identified one of the main security problems with your system.
FWIW, any rapid changeover is going to introduce its own costs and problems, but it is possible to write secure software which will generally pay for itself over time. Just not in the next quarter, or probably the next year. And you need to do decent Q/A testing before releasing the software. You still won't catch everything, but with the right design exploits won't propagate from module to module.
The real problem is trying to change too much too quickly and without sufficient Q/A. Doing that will save you money over the long term, but not over the short term, and it will mean that you don't adopt the latest glitz very quickly...and often not at all. So your image, as well as your actuality, won't be "cutting edge" but rather "solid and reliable". There are reasons the "cutting edge" is frequently called the "bleeding edge".
It's not using current technology that's the problem, it's that without unsafe methods you can't do remote administration, and it's more expensive to get someone to come in when you need to update the system. It's rather like a lot of the bugs that depend on bios flaws wouldn't be a problem is the bios couldn't be updated without throwing a local switch. And a lot of the complexity is mandated by marketing needs, not by technology.
It's my suspicion that a really safe network would be much cheaper, but this means you need the manufacturers selling things that require the equivalent of moving a jumper before you could update them, or perhaps even install executable software. It's not something that's cheaper if only one company does it...unless that company is, say, Intel.
That *can* be correct, but whether it is or not depends on other circumstances. Your argument is valid for legality, but not for ethics. And it's quite reasonable to claim that a person who cancels a contract is acting unethically, even though it's often an invalid claim.
Say what? For one thing, Microsoft has lost some of the biggest lawsuits and been subject to some of the most severe penalties in the modern corporate tech sector.
Citation needed. This sounds like something out of an alternative universe.
One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.
So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?
So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.
If you think the intolerance exists on only one side you are blind, probably willfully so. And it's as reasonable to call the right hypocritical for that as the left. (At one point it was more reasonable, but you don't often find the right any longer even pretending to be strict constitutionalists.)
FWIW, I have more sympathy for that stated goals of the left than of the right, but in both cases their stated goals would result in a non-functional society. And there are, in both cases, adequate grounds for not trusting the purported candidate wielders of power with even the intent of accomplishing many of the stated goals. And in both cases most of the ones they are most likely to attempt to accomplish are the ones I would really rather they forgot. There are some exceptions, e.g. Hillary might actually try to improve the cost of education.