Google should have created an OS architecture that allowed for it to push its own security updates while leaving the aesthetic aspects and third party apps of the phone vendors and carriers alone (unless they were fundamental to the security problem).
If there were a clear dividing line between "aesthetic aspects" and "things fundamental to the security problem", that might be feasible. The Android One project has actually tried to draw such a line, but none of the big OEMs are happy with where Google drew it. They want lots of control.
I don't see why Google can't figure it out
(Android security team member here)
It's not that Google doesn't know how to do that. It's that Google can't do that while also having a free and open source OS. Every piece that's moved out of the OS and into Play services is another piece that is no longer open. Moreover, if Google does too much of that sort of thing and removes the ability of OEMs to customize and differentiate their devices, they'll ignore Google completely, filling in the missing bits with their own code. Removing components from the OS is a last resort, not a first choice.
What makes things worse are carrier specific builds. Apple managed to do tell them to F off, Google should too.
AFAIK, Google doesn't do carrier-specific builds for Nexus devices (though I know there is some carrier-specific testing). Google can't control what other companies do. Their devices have to pass the tests to prove compatibility or they can't use the Google apps (including Play, which is the biggest carrot), but that's the full extent of the control Google has.
The general thrust is: You can't help people commit crimes.
True, but if you do help someone commit a crime, then you should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime, not money laundering. This guy was prosecuted for money laundering and the judge said "this ain't money laundering". If they want to prosecute him for conspiracy, they may have more luck. My guess is they went with money laundering because they thought it was easier to prove or because it had heftier penalties.
The reason banks care is that they want to make sure you didn't borrow your downpayment from another bank. So the red flag for them is not the amount or the claimed source, but how recently you got the money. If the cash has been sitting in your bank account for several months -- and doesn't show up as a loan on your credit report -- they're happy to assume it's yours.
So, if the AC's parents gave him the 100K and it sat in his account for a few months, the bank probably wouldn't ask many questions about it. Twice I've used the proceeds of stock sales as part of a downpayment. I sold the stock just a few weeks before the purchase so the lenders *did* question the source of the money and I had to provide documentation to show that it was from a stock sale.
In many parts of the world, and especially in India, gold is indeed widely used as an "ultimate" store of value. Go to Dubai and you'll see the immegrant workers buying "genuine guaranteed" ingots to take back home
Yep, it has worth because lots of people believe it does. Same as fiat currencies... gold just has a longer history of being considered valuable, so people think less about the fact that its actual value, in terms of stuff you can make/do with it, isn't actually that large.
The crappiest encrypted bluetooth keyboard is better than virtually any of these proprietary wireless systems, almost none of which use encryption and virtually all of which use common off-the-shelf wireless chips.
Logitech has something called secure connect, no idea if that is worth a crap. Not tested here, unfortunately. Their normal non-bluetooth wireless is known to be insecure, however.
Logitech, easily as popular as Microsoft and more popular than ANY of the named brands, wasn't tested? Why not?
Their hardware is already known to be vulnerable.
If your keyboard doesn't use bluetooth, it is certainly vulnerable.
If your keyboard does use bluetooth, it might still be vulnerable.
Normally all I can find is psuedorandom ones
No exceptions. A phone is a critical communications device, and if the OEM won't supply critical upgrades, then they must allow others to do so.
Which Motorola phones don't have unlockable bootloaders? I'd be surprised if PAYG phones from crapfone etc. did, to be fair. But aren't most moto phones unlockable?
How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?
CB can not work well when microwave still does. Better FRS.
I believe the correct answer is not only do you not change the money, you are obliged to contact the police and report the person.
Yes and no respectively. But if the cops ask you, you have to answer honestly or you're an accessory... unless they're asking about your spouse, then you don't have to answer. Whee!
Science fiction is a reflection of today's society.
So why is there so little gay crew?
ST:TOS made TV history in the 1960's with the first interracial kiss when the civil rights movement was ongoing. I'm sure critics called that pandering as well.
I'm sure they did. But the difference is that Trek isn't breaking any ground here whatsoever, and they're going against the wishes of both the original, revered creator (who envisioned the character as straight) and the actor who made the role famous. Put it all together, and it spells fail.
I am not offended by gay characters. I am offended by this senseless pandering. Not because it's gay, but because it's senseless.
Obviously 99% of the crews of Star Trek ships could've been automated away, but who wants to watch a TV series about machines?
It's not that obvious, if you take the Trek universe as a given. There's a bunch of times when the people kept working when the machines didn't, so they clearly were not redundant.
Are you seriously comparing merit-based science and technology awards to the f**ing Nobel peace prize?
I don't take any award seriously absent a reason to do so.
Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.