So did the message to the support, screenshotted in the article.
And it's not just "any party sitting at a cafe". It specifically requires that this malicious party is sitting in the same cafe, present (physically or remotely) at the moment the site is accessed. So it's more likely to be an airport's WiFi network - which is much more probably place where an unsuspecting traveler may access such page. Hunting for a cafe with someone buying tickets from a specific airline is probably too complicated to pay off, unless the attack is personal.
Anyway, I don't argue this is all very bad. It is. What I want to say is that the problem was communicated in a very poor way. And even this follow-up blog article is so light on details, a person without some security knowledge would quite likely shrug it off with an impression it's some tinfoil-hatter screaming at analytics trackers.
Emirates gets a big chunk of their revenues from EU customers. They definitely don't want to piss of EU regulators. As for US regulators, they've been at odds with them for some time, so Emirates will probably try to fight them before giving in. But this particular privacy hole is the size of a crater - it will be hard to fight the regulators. In fact, as a software architect, I feel that the solution is far cheaper than fighting regulators.
Where they are based doesn't matter. If they are collecting revenues (taking payments) from EU clients, it applies. That includes generating ad revenues from EU based eyeballs.
When it comes to on-ad-generating, free websites, it remains to be seen how bold EU regulators get. It'll be hard to penalize or prosecute such websites, and there are enough violations in the fat cats anyway, so I'm guessing those free websites will get a free pass for now (pun intended).
> That includes generating ad revenues from EU based eyeballs.
That would be fairly hard to enforce against a company that doesn't have a physical or legal presence in the EU.
In general, I'm disturbed by governments trying to enforce laws beyond their border just because their citizens are somehow involved by sending information over the internet. In some fields, it's a legal minefield just to comply with the rules of one country, much less several. This won't be a major difficulty for big players with high-paid lawyers and compliance departments, but it could easily kill startups, some before they're even launched.
> In general, I'm disturbed by governments trying to enforce laws beyond their border just because their citizens are somehow involved by sending information over the internet.
Isn't it simple enough to geoblock areas if European customers are somehow too hard to serve?
> In some fields, it's a legal minefield just to comply with the rules of one country, much less several. This won't be a major difficulty for big players with high-paid lawyers and compliance departments, but it could easily kill startups, some before they're even launched.
As the topic is GDPR: a privacy first approach is not rocket science. I'm sure any startup with even the remotest chance of success can follow the basic principles without undue complications.
While I agree that startups should be respectful of privacy, that doesn't change the principle at work here. Allowing countries to enforce laws against companies that don't have a physical or legal presence within their borders is a dangerous mechanism. Introducing a dangerous mechanism to enforce a good policy will result in that mechanism being used for a bad policy later on.
Pride.
To tackle the political corruption issue will require a massive movement and a big consensus. If you visit India, you will realize that nothing gets done through consensus. Only individual actors achieve large successes. India still lives in a kingdom mindset where people draw pride from the acts of their superiors and are thankful for such acts. If you try to do something radically different, you will get a lot of resistance from everyone around you because "that doesn't work here". But if you do succeed, everyone around will claim to be part of it and will talk of you proudly.
So, in that environment, building an ICBM (which is btw a very hard engineering challenge and took India 30 years) is an achievable goal for an individual actor (the defence organization DRDO) and because it was an Indian success, brings pride to a nation of 1.2 billion. Getting rid of corruption will make our lives significantly better (there are many other much more modest goals that will have a similar effect), but it won't bring close to as much pride. In a country where you'd die before driving a Tata Nano if you had any semblance of money (Tata Nano is seen as a cheap car - something not to be proud of) and an iPhone is a must have, such sources of pride as an ICBM count for a lot.
Yes, we are flawed, but as we say, "what to do, we are like this only"
One of the main strengths of india is it's ability to create very low cost products of reasonable quality in many fields.it's probably the greatest thing modern india can offer the world.
For example the tata nano has created the whole mini car segment, that has significantly reduced the cost of low end cars around the world. now many people globally can afford to buy new car. Such effect is much harder to achieve than building an ICBM(which is a pretty old technology).
And indians don't take pride in it(if not at a level of buying it, but at least as a national innovation) ? that's a
shame.
If you didn't know, India and China HAVE fought a war in that region, and you always fight wars 'at the end of supply lines' by definition, so not sure what you mean by that. In fact, both countries have the ability to fight extended wars. India has been fighting a war for decades on its western frontier with Pakistan which is as rugged as the eastern frontier with China. India maintains the highest battleground presence in the world on the Siachen Glacier.
So no, the prospect of a land battle on the Indo-China border is neither unlikely, nor unprecedented.
That said, modern China is a pragmatic country whose primary focus is to keep its own population happy. China has a lot of hurdles in the path to the realization of that goal, and needs the economy of the region to stay stable for that. If China attacks India (or vice versa), global supply chains and economies will get severly affected and in turn will have an avalanche effect on the economies of both the countries. Hence, practically speaking, neither countries would wage war on each other unless taken over by a whimsical, dicatatorial leader (and which dictator isn't whimsical?).
I'm aware of the Sino-Indian border war, but fighting skirmishes in the border region is not at all the same thing as long-running, high intensity combat deep into the opponent's territory. There's a reason why China unilaterally withdrew back to the pre-war line of control afterwards - it's just not feasible for them to take and indefinitely hold large chunks of Indian territory. The same applies to India in reverse.
This is important in the context of strategic nuclear weapons, because the only situation that would justify using such weapons is when national survival is at stake - the risks are just too high otherwise. National survival isn't threatened by short-lived border skirmishes.
India and China have better work than fighting wars at this time.
Our time, money and resources are better utilized spending on development activities than pointless wars.
Besides we(Indian civilization) have never attacked any country in several thousand years and never will. There is no bigger a peace loving nation in the world than India. But if some one attacks us, we need to defend ourselves.
Historically India is impenetrable through the northern and eastern sides because of the natural defense Himalayas provide. Nothing has changed in the modern times.
not sure if being the "peace loving" nation has been good thing for india... India has had too much of that and looks to be a spine less country now which is not willing to take any kind of position or action...
The critical parts to being an entrepreneur are to build a product, raise capital, manage a company and sell the product. For each of those pieces, you need a good professional network. Co-founders to build a product are easy to come by if you are studying for an engineering degree, but finding people for the other 3 pieces of the puzzle are equally or more important and are difficult for an engineering student. So, you have to spend an incredible amount of time networking both within the town/city you are in and in other major tech hubs. You will need to search for and attend every possible free/cheap gathering of techies and through them find people to help with the 'other 3 pieces'. But then there is this other big hassle that looms over everything else.
American immigration laws are specifically designed to keep people out, and that is the biggest barrier you will face. The only way around it is to find a local co-founder and sponsor an H1B visa through the company showing yourself as an employee. There have been recently proposed changes to the H1B rules allowing a sole founder to sponsor their own H1B provided they have investors investing in the company and the company has a board of directors. You will also need to wait a little for enough such cases to go through the USCIS to determine what's the winning formula for such H1B visa approvals. In parallel with all of your other efforts at finding people, you will hence have to find a good immigration lawyer who will also work on a project basis at low rates. Of late, USCIS has be onerous in demanding documented evidence for H1B cases, so you can very well rule out applying entirely by yourself.
The gist is that although it's possible, it's very hard to be an entrepreneur straight out of college if you are not from the country. The shortest route is to fall in love with an american (citizen) girl and marry her. And I don't say that in jest.
Depending on your qualifications, you can also get a H1-B job from a major US corporation and convert it into a green card. Being sponsored as the spouse of a US citizen is probably faster (especially if you are from a country where employment-based green cards don't have a current priority date), but the USCIS are suspicious of marriages and the process can be somewhat gruelling. You also end up with a temporary green card until you have been married for two years.
Do you realize how long the process of getting an employment based green card takes? Oddly enough, it is possibly the longest way to obtain US residency. 5-7 years from the start is probably the average, and 10+ years is not unheard of. Most of that time the application is simply sitting idle on a shelf in some government office waiting to be processed. Illegal immigrant who crosses Rio Grande at the same time as someone on H1B submits his paperwork has a decent chance of getting legalized faster (there was at least one if not two amnesties while I was waiting for my GC, and each one slows down the legal queue because understaffed USCIS offices divert resources to process "undocumented" aliens). Getting GC through marriage or some refugee program is much, much faster.
It would be nice if US voters at large were a little more aware of how immigration laws work in practice.
[EDIT] I am in no way suggesting the marriage route, just pointing out that there are many countries with enormous backlogs and for people coming from those countries converting H1B to GC for the purposes of starting a company may, unfortunately, not be a viable option.
Actually, I have first-hand experience of this process. My comment was not made offhand.
It took less than 18 months from starting work as a H1B to receiving my green card. I started the green card process a month into my job.
8
How come? The system is ridiculous; I am lucky enough to have been born in the UK, and not in one of the countries with long years of backlog. I also did a Master's which qualified me for EB2. Between these, my priority date was current so the processing time was simply paper shuffling. Given the suspicion of USCIS around marriages and the process I am going through with my husband's green card, I certainly wouldn't take such a blasé attitude to marriage if you are also, fortunately and entirely randomly, in a current priority class.
I was around in 2001-2002 and again in 2008-2009. I needed visa sponsorship. Yes, there were jobs available, but few where the employer was willing to sponsor a visa. I had many interviews where the employer was jubilant at the end of the interview, and then 2 days later, HR called to tell me that they won't be taking on anyone who requires visa sponsorship. Recruiters told me that I would be immensely valuable once I got my green card.
So, yes, you should be worried. Especially if the market keeps going down.
But there is a ray of hope. The new rules tweaks from the USCIS give people like you a lot of breathing room. You can sponsor your own H1B visa if you build your own startup and have a board that has the ability to hire/fire/manage you. The American Immigration Lawyers' Association (AILA) is still working on understanding the tweaks, and there won't be much clarity until a few visa applications are approved or rejected based on the new rules. So, it will take at least 2 months to get clarity. Start looking for jobs through your professional network (build one if you don't have one), and start looking for a good immigration lawyer. I could actually help with the latter. Online jobs websites are mostly useless until you have a green card.
Python on Android would be my preferred option. But I've yet to look at Scala and Ruby, so if they become available on Android, I'd definitely try that. I have 3 android devices, but haven't gotten around to programming them because I hate Java.
Just being pedantic, curveball is closer to swing. Perhaps the closet too googly would be a splitter. That said, from the perspective of the language/idiom, curveball would be appropriate usage in the context ...
Its now frequently a third pitch (in addition to the "normal" fastballs mixed usually with a change-up or curve ball and sometimes a slider). Generally a higher risk/reward pitch than any of the aforementioned due to challenges in controlling its motion.
(I've had a few random conversations with Indians while travelling recently, and they knew more about the players and results in domestic leagues in my own country than I do)
The ACM abstract gave a good overview of what the site was supposed to do, but when I went to the actual site, it was horriblyi designed with no clear description of what the service was supposed to do.
Maybe if the OP Gave a very well designed application using existing implementations it would take off.
