732 karma · joined December 15, 2015
I'll offer cystic fibrosis as an example. Trikafta may as well be a miracle drug. And CRISPR-based gene editing and replacements are being researched that could be an outright cure, as opposed to a 90% cure.
As for SmartTube, their keys were compromised. Inconvenient, but it wasn't about hostility to self-installed applications.
Hey, give credit where credit's due.
The first to try that was NJ going after 3d printed gun developers.
If the distro does not ship with any hardware, it could only be attained via download? So how would this imperil Linux distros?
Not to defend the law, it's comically pointless. Conservative states demanding ID verification for anything 'pornographic' and progressive ones trying to limit anyone under 18 from having any social media access at all. Clownish.
It's no surprise that there's so much hostility towards police in the US when they routinely abuse their authority.
Many cops arrest people for not providing identification when they're under no obligation to do so. Those cops should be insulted, and deserve consequences.
Malignant authority needs to be treated with maximal hostility. The 'lesson' you want here is completely backwards.
In 10 and prior you could even move it to other monitors, just by dragging and dropping it. It's baffling they thought that functionality was a bug that people wanted 'fixed'.
I wonder if this will include being able to put it on the non-primary display once again. It's not mentioned, but that was one of the biggest frustrations with Windows 11. It seems their focus is exclusively on single display devices.
It also ruined my flow for my flight sim until I found a workaround. The fullscreen window wishes to launch to the primary display, which means losing the useful bits of the taskbar.
I love what they're saying, but my faith in them is very, very is low.
Certainly not as unhealthy as crack.
And the location of the target is entirely the point when the alternative to the pager attack is a JDAM, an attack with greater collateral damage, but still a valid target. Imagine instead of an explosive charge, these pagers were somehow phoning home and providing location data that Israel could use to perform airstrikes. Based on that intel, those air strikes would be entirely legitimate, and they would include far more collateral damage than the charge in the pager.
An attack on the water supply is indiscriminate. A water supply poisoning makes no attempt at differentiating between the targets and the civilian population.
A water source the entire population of an area relies upon is in no way the same as a specific, small organization's private means of communication that it distributed to its members.
Or are you under the impression Israel simply loaded a Lebanese RadioShack with explosive pagers and hoped Hezbollah would be the ones buying them? You could argue that it was not discriminate because there were pagers distributed to civilian Hezbollah members, who may not have been valid targets, but that is not the same argument.
Every bit of reporting on it tries heart-string tugging, just to quietly reveal one of the unintended targets picked up the pager to bring it to a Hezbollah member father, uncle, or brother.
And his limiting it to "virtually every potential theater" would suggest that it's mostly present in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, most likely Iraq as well.
But let's be honest here, this isn't civilian equipment that's been compromised. It's supply chain attacks where the buyer is manipulated into buying goods that they've tampered with, or re-engineered. They weren't pagers anyone could pick up at Radio Shack. (Everyone who got hit was a target, or a direct relative of a target.)
They weren't flagged because they went into Lebanon which has very little import security, and because it was a supply chain attack.
The batteries were swapped for a combination battery / explosive charge. The follow-up attack where Hezbollah moved to using walkie-talkies that were also rigged to explode was the real shocker, though.
Canada loses a lot of its top talent every year to the US, mostly because of the TN visa. Canadian talent leaves Canada every year, and less investment is not going to help.
This is made worse by Canadian investment culture being very conservative, and not loving startups in general.
In this case, hitting a massive number of small sites, which aren't engaged in piracy, to protect a few large entities from some other small piracy sites. It's what's happening in both Italy and Spain.
And it wasn't a Spanish government policy, but rather a single judge's order.
The key point is rather simple.
> In doing so, we hold for the first time that, (a) by its text and purpose, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, does not turn these workplace-policy infractions into federal crimes, and (b) passwords that protect proprietary business information are not themselves trade secrets under federal or Pennsylvania law.
Footnote 2 is also amusing: "To the dismay of IT professionals everywhere, the document was titled "My Passwords.xlsx." App. 2770"
Do you think they'd be worried about radiation?
If the adverse effects happen decades after you'll statistically be deceased I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no safe level of exposure.
It's not at the expense of consumers and the environment. It could make much of what consumers buy prohibitively expensive, for potentially no benefit.
Although I do disagree on the reasonable/unreasonable angle, because I don't tend to analogize the contents of your phone to the contents of your safe, but rather to the contents of your mind.
The article does address the flaws in some of their arguments (encryption inconveniences law enforcement, think of the children) by pointing out that the average person and children are kept save from criminal elements by encryption.
The world is what it is. A factual observation is just that! But I think it would be better said that while practicing mechanics one should not be trying to practice virtue.
A moral position will push out a factually accurate one if you aren't willing to ignore your views when assessing something.
> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
The way it's worded is to prevent destroying civilian targets for no military gain.