Of course not! Surely they would've learned from their experience with another tech fraud, Theranos. No way they'd spend $200M on untested tech after having to pay out $44M to defrauded patients (plus all the lost revenue and investment) for working with unproven tech ...

Frankly at this point it's amazing that Walgreens continues to be an ongoing thing that hasn't been snapped up by another chain ...

I for one look forward to the M-5! Oh wait, that turns out somewhat badly ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I came here just to post this, thanks for restoring my faith that other people watched the same Saturday Sci-Fi B-movies as me!

It's *all* bullshit - even if it doesn't directly physically harm you, it's harming you financially (you wasted money on it), and it's indirectly harming you physically because you're not seeking an actual treatment that will work for your condition. Yank 'em all until "proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE".

"We love having you! Can you please take a minute to tell us why you are trying another browser?"

Because I hate that you are wasting my time asking questions like this instead of letting me just use my damn computer the way I want to.

And FYI, Linux doesn't give me exit interviews M$, maybe learn a thing or two.

I dearly wish people would stop trying to turn Paolo Bacigalupi's "The Water Knife" from fiction to prophecy (and a shout-out to his short story "The Tamarisk Hunter" which is just as relevant). Go read, people, and stop trying to create an unsustainable dystopia in the desert. And if sci-fi isn't your thing, go read "Cadillac Desert" (heavily referenced in "The Water Knife") and learn more about how we screwed up water management and American West in the first place.

Just because we *can* live (and farm) in a place doesn't make it a good idea ...

While it's a different MG today than then (name only, sadly), my first and only unintended/uncontrolled acceleration event was in a 1975 MGB back in the late 80's ... there was a component similar to an air resonator (little aluminum tube similar to a small clothes dryer hose) that fell off and wedged in the mechanical throttle linkage, holding it open. Happened during a shift, felt the acceleration and just dropped it in to neutral and shut off the engine, then coasted to a stop. Pulled out the offending piece and chucked it in the back, and resumed the drive. I can't find that part on any diagrams now, so I'm not sure what it was but I know it wasn't essential as it never got reinstalled and the car ran just fine without it.

It took a lot to keep that thing on the road, but I sure do miss that car.

That is EXACTLY right - we need to stop using the term "zero-emissions", which is meaningless, and start providing a scorecard of the actual environmental impact so that when folks are comparing options, they're actually comparing apples-to-apples. Don't tell me my electric car is "green" - give me a number that represents its own emissions (higher rubber wear on the tires due to weight), the impact of the materials that went into its construction (including the battery), the emissions for "fuel generation" (this, perhaps, might have to be an average since it may be too difficult to estimate what fraction of wind/nuclear/coal/gas/solar/etc. went into my particular power generation mix), and some factor for recyclability/reclaimability of the components. Do the same for ICE powered by gasoline, diesel, LPG, etc.

NOW you have an actual number to work with: perhaps your electric vehicle is not as green compared to a hydrogen vehicle now, because even though both generate emissions where fuel is generated, the battery can't currently be recycled and the tire wear is higher, offsetting the NOx generated by the hydrogen vehicle. Maybe an ICE vehicle fueled by LPG tops both, because the infrastructure for moving LPG around already exists and other factors offset. It at least moves it to a meaningful set of metrics that both consumers and policy makers could leverage, instead of marketing and handwaving about just the point-of-use emissions.

Yes, but we really need to stop calling hydrogen a zero-emissions fuel - there may be zero emissions (except for water of course) at the point-of-use, but rendering the hydrogen is an energy-intensive process, you've simply moved the emissions to a different location, much as is the case with EVs. Until the whole fuel generation and transportation lifecycle is taken into account, there's simply no way to compare the total environmental impact, and the phrase "zero emissions" has no useful meaning other than to say "We moved the pollution away from you and likely to a more economically disadvantaged location."

Since "A master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance to any individual found at sea in danger of being lost" (46 U.S. Code section 2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea) he is potentially putting at risk any crew that comes across him should they try to rescue him (although the code does state that the master/individual should do so only if they can do it without serious danger to their vessel and individuals aboard). Additionally, he's a collision hazard and his hamster wheel could damage whatever collides with him, whether he's still alive within it or not.

A better solution would be to rank the apps based on the target installation device ... if my target is a phone, I don't really WANT a tablet-optimized app, I want something that's optimized for phone use. If my target is a tablet, great, tell me what works well there but don't downrank an app that doesn't have tablet optimization if it doesn't NEED that (I've got a tablet and plenty of phone apps work just fine on it with no optimizations whatsoever). And for heavens sake don't start downranking apps that work just fine and recommending some bullsh*t app that doesn't have the actual app functionality I need just because it happens to format well for the bigger screen.

"Congress is too slow, it lacks the tech expertise" ... well said, and nice of them to admit it. Maybe if they addressed that first, then tried legislating from a position of actual expertise they'd get productive results, rather than frantic hand-waving, hyperbole, and assumptions about how it all works or ought to work.

A not-even-top-of-the-line AI demonstrating it's smarter than half the commenters on this thread (at least it "understood" TOA) -

Me: "How can we prevent the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current?"
Bard: "The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a major ocean current system that transports warm surface waters toward the northern Atlantic, where they cool and sink, then flow back south along the ocean floor. The AMOC plays a vital role in regulating global climate, and its collapse could have catastrophic consequences.

There are a number of factors that could contribute to the collapse of the AMOC, including:

  - Increased freshwater input from melting glaciers and ice sheets
  - Increased stratification of the ocean, which makes it more difficult for warm surface waters to mix with cold deep waters
  - Increased greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to global warming and more extreme weather events

The good news is that there are things we can do to prevent the collapse of the AMOC. These include:

  - Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
  - Investing in renewable energy sources
  - Protecting forests, which help to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
  - Adapting to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise and more extreme weather events

Preventing the collapse of the AMOC is a complex challenge, but it is one that we must take seriously. The future of our planet depends on it.

Here are some specific actions that can be taken to prevent the collapse of the AMOC:

  - Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which warm the planet and make the AMOC more vulnerable to collapse.
  - Invest in renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, do not produce greenhouse gases, so they can help to reduce the amount of warming that is causing the AMOC to weaken.
  - Protect forests. Forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to slow global warming.
  - Adapt to the effects of climate change. We need to prepare for the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and more extreme weather events. This includes building seawalls to protect coastal communities from flooding and developing drought-resistant crops.

The collapse of the AMOC is a serious threat to our planet, but it is not inevitable. If we take action now, we can prevent it from happening."

Nice job, Bard - OK humans, go do your stuff!

Likely not, at least not intentionally - the objective of these records retention projects is to ensure that older records that are no longer required are completely destroyed, no just to save space/maintenance/etc. but to specifically ensure that they can't be requested as part of a legal fishing expedition. That's not an effort to avoid the law, it's more of a cost/risk avoidance measure (you have to remember the cost of discovery and producing evidence can be HUGE, you want to be able to establish you had a clear policy of "records beyond x age aren't kept" ahead of that request so you don't have to hunt for them).

On the other hand - backups are hard, and backup eradication can be equally hard, so while it's not unreasonable to think the data might be on a tape somewhere, if they actually did their record retention project properly the obvious backups should've been scrubbed and tracking down copies of that data would be very difficult.

Generally, I agree, although Rosco P. Coltrane pointed out some cases where you could actually want this. However, as you'll note in the original summary and TFA, this set of bugs affects you for non-admin access from the WAN side as well, including port forwarding, DDNS, VPN server, DMZ, port trigger - all of which are more common than WAN administration.