Meanwhile Hillary broke the law... No, she didn't. She was careless. Being careless is not illegal.
There's thousands of folks in prison who will be excited to hear they have been exonerated because they didn't mean to do what they did! In fact, there are people in prison right now for leaking classified documents accidentally. However, they weren't extremely rich and powerful...
Being careless IS illegal if you commit a crime in your carelessness.
OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach.
Why not take the Trump approach? Let the second amendment people deal with this
I don't think the PAC he was referring to would bother wasting resources on it.
Plenty. That, Windows, and Esperanto vs Klingon are all battlegrounds for nerd turf-wars.
Real nerds speak Shyriiwook.
Just what you wanted, yet another adapter to carry just so the device specs can be gamed to say it's another quarter of a millimeter less thick, and you can be sold proprietary accessories at a vastly higher profit margin. AWESOME!
In fairness, Apple customers do seem to actually relish price increases.
Uh... so how fast does it go? Y'know, in normal numbers?
The *real* question is "How FAR does it go on a charge?" Which is followed closely by a related question "How long does it take to recharge?"
Having high acceleration and top speed are nice, but if you only get 40 miles from a full charge which takes 4 hours to achieve, what's the point? It might be interesting for the race track, but as a practical means of transportation it's useless to 90% of us.
I know this is slashdot and nobody reads the article, but seriously... read the article. It's in there.
Who the f drag races cars and measures time in time to 1km or to 100km/h? No country I know of!
He might not be a country, but apparently angel o'sphere does!
Fastest or quickest. Big difference. A couple of years ago, Don Garlits in his electric dragster did a 7.26 seconds 184 mph quarter mile run. As of a couple of months ago, he has not broken the 200 mph barrier. Yet.
And then he had to have it towed off the track because it's not street legal...
That requires a little over 90 mph average speed. It's aerodynamically pretty awful, so you could probably make it go quite a bit faster. For comparison, Formula E cars top out at 140 mph, but they're also aerodynamically far superior. The problem is that both have very limited range. A Formula E race lasts 50 minutes. And this car doesn't have great range, either.
I get that developing electric cars is a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but I think we could do more to make electric and gasoline powered cars more efficient. For example, I don't really understand why cars don't have a kinetic energy recovery system in them. Some race cars have a KERS, which makes them quite a bit more efficient in road courses. For city driving, a KERS could make cars more efficient with the accelerating and braking that occurs. It won't do a lot for highway driving, but it'll really help with city driving.
Formula E cars aren't street legal. They'd need many modifications to make them compete with this street legal car. Many of those modifications would significantly reduce their performance (bumpers etc).
Why would anyone pay that much for Opera?
Why would anyone pay $600M for something with annual revenues of $460M? Best hopes of 5 years to recover the investment, but more likely 10 or more years? That makes no sense.
I think you read the article backwards. The stuff NOT sold somehow generates $460 mill. However, it seems like an $600M investment that would likely generate $920M over two years might not be so bad. I guess that comes down to how much of that revenue is profit.
Wait, WHERE is cloud?!! shit.
Don't be dense now... it's in the sky! How can they take the sky away? The sky belongs to everyone!
Google just trained 2 millions Indians.
1. They just announced the program. Training has not yet started.
2. They are training these guys in android development, not hiring and training them to manage youtube content.
I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
Why would you grant such trust at a time when we're reading stories about prosecutors and investigators simply making things up? There was even a story about a guy who had been exonerated in such a case yet still sits in prison for years afterward.
Therefore, when court evidence is presented it should always be treated as suspect until the system can prove otherwise.
ENcrypting alters the data.
DEcrypting puts the data back into it's original state.
"Puts it back" = alters.
This seems like a data vs information discussion to me.
There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.