There is a difference between understanding the content (e.g. ICO) and understanding what happens a few weeks after the content is interacted with (e.g. someone runs off with the money). The first is doable, the second requires prescience.
Every Facebook ad has a dropdown in the top right corner, and one of the options is "Why am I seeing this ad?". It will show you details on that ad's targeting and why you are seeing it.
At least in the United States, Personality rights are only for commercial use. You do not need someone's consent to take their photo or to publish said photo as long as you do not attempt to profit from it.
This for example allows you to take a photo on the street and publish it even if the photo contains some strangers. The concern that does come up is whether the subject of the photo has a reasonable expectation of privacy; if they are in public, they do not.
(note: not a lawyer, but I have taken many photos of strangers)
The fee would obviously have to take this into account but I see no principal problem with that. I would assume that showing ads to somebody from a rich country also brings in more money than showing them to someone from a poorer country.
It's not about individual productivity - it's about team and company productivity.
I doubt anyone questions whether individual effectiveness suffers from an open layout. However open layouts have several benefits that more than compensate:
- Impromptu conversations are easy. The barrier to ask someone a question is lower - it's faster to get unblocked.
- Shared context. With conversations happening in the open, others will often overhear, sometimes learn, and often will choose to participate.
- Impromptu socialization leads to better morale. Someone drops by to chat socially, others join in, people build personal relationships.
- Function-specific spaces. The space saved by having a denser desk layout is allocated to having everything from kitchens to massage chair rooms to ping-pong tables. At the same cost per employee, an open space layout has more 'perks'.
I've worked in both offices and open spaces and I far prefer open spaces with a good etiquette about when to interrupt someone.
We also have a system for patching vulnerabilities which does not require a full code push. It has been useful on a number of occasions. (source: I patched this one)
Does Facebook usually respond to exploit reports so quickly, or does the fact that the discoverer (Stephen Sclafani) helped Facebook find bugs in previous years mean that his emails were automatically flagged as high-priority?
We try to respond to any exploit of this severity immediately, and will often disable a feature temporarily while working on a fix rather than letting the exploit remain open. It helps a lot when the repro steps are as clear as they were in this one.
The ruling is not so much about whether they can search a phone without a warrant, but whether the resulting evidence is admissible in court for criminal cases. This will not impact NSA's collection since they have not been using it in court.
Unfortunately, we still need to address parallel construction which allows the fruits of NSA collection to make its way into domestic law enforcement activities and eventually court cases by indirect means. Parallel construction seems like it should be ruled unconstitutional since you have the right to confront your accuser in court (confrontation clause of the sixth amendment).
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know the current state of legal challenges that aim to stop the practice of parallel construction?
The 1.1% of Amazon sales (by item count) for Hachette is an interesting metric if only to determine overall sales volume for Amazon should someone happen to have the approximate Hachette numbers.
they made it clear that was "weighted demand" though, so items sold, not items provided. You'd need "Hachette sales through Amazon", a number unlikely to be available beyond Amazon/Hachette employees/execs.
If you use the device token as the authentication and identification, any other app on the device immediately gains the ability to log into your service as that user. May as well use a single password across all services which do this.
On iOS, this is only true for applications that share the same keychain, which would imply they come from the same developer. This is actually a really great under-utilized feature that could be used to create a suite of apps with different behaviors that reference the same anonymous identity.
