Are there a bunch of people for whom the 3D polarized glasses are specifically an issue?
It's been my experience, that the movie is fuzzier with 3D glasses. Both my wife and I had experience where we'd see a movie with her family in 3D, then go see it later on our own in 2D and were blown away the second time by how nice the film looked. Now we have kids and certainly don't have the time to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but because of our previous experience we always opt for 2D.
If you forecast that it's going to be sunny, and it rains, everyone is mad at you. If you forecast it'll rain, but it turns out sunny, people might be bothered, but aren't angry. So you over forecast rain predictions.
And then if you're running a free email service, and can recover some deleted items, but don't want to make promises about whatever internal garbage collection process you're using (and want the freedom to change it whenever you want), you say that you can never recover deleted items. That way if you legitimately can't recover it you can say that you never promised that you could. But then when one is recoverable, you can claim it good luck.
For all we know, a regression was introduced at just the right time, and items weren't getting garbage collected like they were supposed to, and Yahoo! was able to take advantage of that accident in this case.
the difference is that the psychological influence is more subtle in a sting - but it's still possible that the guy would never have done anything without FBI prodding.
The FBI didn't prod. He proposed, and they answered.
I have always found the American acceptance of entrapment to be perplexing.
We have very specifically crafted rules around what makes up entrapment, and what makes a sting. The FBI is very careful to follow these rules, because they don't want all of their hard work to get thrown up. Plus, I suspect, that they would rather be spending their effort on someone wanting to commit the crimes, not someone who isn't.
So these agents, paid with my tax dollars, recruited, trained, encouraged, and entrapped a teenager in a make believe crime when he would have otherwise been studying for his midterms.
I doubt he would have been studying for his midterms. He would have just looked for another source of a way to attach infidels.
The idea that businesses should actually train the workforce that they need, such as with apprenticeships, sponsoring employees in education on the job, or whatever, seems to be lost on Spanish businesses, I guess?
And let the employee get snatched up by some other company once trained? That's a losing strategy.
The problem is that the computer crashed the car in a very stupid way that most likely would have been prevented if a human was driving the car. I mean the computer failed to notice a huge lorry. I would have noticed it even without my glasses.
I remember talking with someone who shared an experience she had had a few weeks earlier. She was a road construction worker, holding a stop sign and there were a few cars stopped. A big tractor trailer came to a stop, a little bit later the back of the trailer jumped up and went back down. She radioed in that she thought something was wrong and went to investigate. A motorcycle had come to a complete stop behind the trailer, but the pickup truck driver behind the motorcycle wasn't paying attention, didn't see the trailer and rammed right into it, crushing the motor cycle (and it's driver) between his pickup and the trailer. Not a fun thing to discover.
I know that for the vast majority of people, they would never miss a tractor trailer, but it does surprisingly happen.
does anyone release malware that can't evade Windows Defender out of the box?
Given Window Defenders wide spread usage, it would kind of be pointless to do so. Evading Windows Defender would be the minimum requirement for any new piece of malware.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.