Re: Lots of concern but no much care.
"that only covers federal whistleblowers."
It does?
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"it wouldn't be too much to ask the Boeing be broken up and sold off"
I can imagine something of that sort happening. The US would want to preserve the armaments business. If the loss of reputation on the passenger side were to put that at risk then breaking it up might follow PDQ.
"unless business as usual comes to a screeching halt over this, which I doubt"
If it has enough bad effect on sales it could well have that effect. Of course the armaments side of the business wouldn't be affected and the US govt obviously has an interest in keeping that going. I wonder if we'll see the corporation split to protect that.
I bet the settlements were on the basis of "No admission of wrongdoing" or similar.
So do I.
Because a company can settle and then publicly deny the factor that lead them to settle I think they get into a habit of thinking that this applies to any dispute that went against them. Maybe this is why we then get companies continuing to deny an actual decision that went against them.
"It seems to me that we in the west are perfectly happy if our data is being slurped by our own guys."
Speak for yourself.
Personally I'm fed up with being told I'm happy with this, approve that, demand something else when they're all things with which I disagree.
"Surely Virgin, Unimax (who?) and the US gov are more responsible for these phones since they actually make and distribute them."
The US gov makes or distributes phones? Since when?
OTOH I'd agree that the obvious line of attack would be those selling them, at least under European customer protection legislation. It's then up to the vendor to twist the arms of the makers.
'Even if the individual components were tested individually it still doesn't mean that their particular combination is safe - a wetting agent may, for instance, increase skin penetration of some other component.
It's amazing how much fuss they can make over putting gloop in bottles whilst saving the costs of safety checks.
"Would that be the same late capitalists that used to think routine testing of cosmetics etc on animals was a legitimate part of their business operations?"
On the other hand: It's Christmas Winterval. Here's a very expensive mixture we're selling you to give to your nearest and dearest to smear over themselves. It's so dangerous we haven't tested it on animals.
"The mere fact that the selection of adverts you are presented with in your social feeds, search engine searches and banner advertising changes over time is proof of this ongoing optimisation."
You just don't get it, do you?
To go all Bob: I BLOCK ADS.
And I HAVE NO SOCIAL FEEDS. Zilch.
Don't let this stop you telling your clients you can send me advertising. If you could your selection would undoubtedly be for those things I've already bought or stuff I don't want.
An example of the latter. If, for geographical reasons, I search for a place name, the results will be swamped with estate agents sites for that area despite the fact that I have no intention whatsoever of even going there let alone buying a house there. It's not a phrase I'd use often but I feel sorry for those estate agents who are being bilked for fees to put that crap in front of me.
"Advertisers need eyeballs, and they'll buy them"
It's the intermediaries, the advertising industry, who are the problem. The more snake oil they can sell the more money they make but that snake-oil is their "service" and the people they're selling it to are the advertisers.
John Wanamaker is reputed to have said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." If he'd been alive now he'd have loved ad-blockers because they would have solved his problem. It's no surprise the ad-industry hates them - they want their customers to keep on wasting that money.
"Users who spend most of their time in, say, Google Chrome, Microsoft Office, and some custom internal applications, may find the benefits of upgrading to Windows 10 hard to see"
These are the ones which would be easiest to migrate to 10. There are suitable applications waiting for them. Those who find the benefits really hard to see are those dependant on applications which weren't ported to 10, maybe using H/W for which there are no drivers later than 7.
"Last year, Gartner warned that the global smartphone market was actively shrinking"
I doubt it. A more appropriate phrase would be "getting saturated".
I can only image that business schools across the world are churning out MBAs who have been told that if you see sales doubling for three successive quarters it means your market is expanding exponentially and will always continue to do that.
How about an arrangement like this:
Assuming that it's technically possible to unlock the phone then for each phone an agency wants unlocking the agency has to provide the phone of one of its senior staff or one of its political masters - a public interest third party gets to choose which. Both phones are unlocked and the complete contents of the agency phone get published. What's the problem with that? If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.
The essence of Chrome-OS is that it's a thin client to work with Google's services. It makes no difference how secure the comms or the OS if that's what you're doing.
There must be a number of use cases for deploying a thin-client solution but any worthwhile ones must start with finding a remote service you trust.
"It proposes to allow OpenReach to tack on these costs before a single road is dug up"
Tack them onto what? I have a nasty feeling that those of us who live in rural areas with perfectly good FTTC services are going to get stiffed in order to subsidise FTTP for other customers whilst having an unwanted and disruptive "upgrade" forced on ourselves.