Didn't administrations before Obama act the same way as well? Wasn't this the whole thing is that basically every few years on cue the gov't tries to fight encryption as if it's a bad thing? Wyden has been at the other end of the spectrum for years. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
I believe the correct wording is that it's a mechanism to charge people *of* color
Pasta is about 90% pasta and 10% sauce. I wouldn't even suggest putting them together.
That's like calling pizza a vegetable.
I find it hilarious - here is apple having tried to force a proprietary standard, so everything existing is not compatible (lightning).
Now we have apple finally adopting everyone else's industry standard and everything they had previously is incompatible (USB-C).
Isn't this what happened to Firewire?
Maybe one day they'll catch up to headphone jacks.
Please. It's something they do because they want to charge people more for the same service. It has nothing to do with customers not paying bills. That's what *contracts* are for.
Actually if we're talking a camera, why couldn't people replace it with their own?
Probably not all that complicated.
This is explicitly incorrect. You cannot and will never get permission.
The DMCA and other laws need to enable security testing by security professionals if it's not causing harm (as opposed to negligence). I do recall there are already laws on the books for this.
government spying is extremely lucrative, so these things are not separate. If you're spying on business deals you're going to profit immediately.
when those are your choices you're basically telling us you're too ignorant to realize that you shouldn't have to make bad choices. You're the definition of voter apathy.
If your choice is to lose an arm or a leg, well maybe you shouldn't have to accept either option.
This is the very definition of bad math/outsourcing mistakes.
Just because it costs less doesn't mean you're getting an equivalent service. If you save $200k but lose $500k in productivity then congrats you have outsourced to the detriment of the business. Likewise transition costs take out more productivity.
While the relationship isn't equal financially, the leave/fire is exactly equal.
You're not obligated to give 2 weeks and neither are they . You're given whatever the company is financially obligated to give you when you leave and vice versa. Etc.
The relationship isn't equal financially in that they make financially a substantially larger amount of money than what they pay you - which isn't disclosed to you. If you make $100k but they're making $700k off of you (even after expenses), who is getting the bad deal?
I think a better way to word that is everyone is entitled to offend
Having to pay money to remove corruption in an established organization is not the definition of ethical business in the first place.
That's called the old extortion/thug plan "pay up for protection".
BAPco deserves $0 from anyone, especially if they have a problem discriminating against people who don't give them omney.
That's only if you put the vocal cords inside his anus.
Maybe they weren't.
The real vote wasn't 285 to 281. It was 342 to 274. Not "Close".
"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972
