Our company has directly profited from a competitor that leaked sensitive data, because some of their large corporate customers decided to switch to us.
Business don't like being on the receiving end of a data leak either you know.
More serious answer: it's Mariah Carey in the music video for "All I want for Christmas is you", https://youtu.be/aAkMkVFwAoo
"In an April 2008 article in Vanity Fair magazine, the journalist David Rose published confidential documents, apparently originating from the US State Department, which would prove that the United States collaborated with the PNA and Israel to attempt the violent overthrow of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and that Hamas pre-empted the coup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)#:~:text=In an April,empted the coup.
You have some reading to do.
There is no police for international matters.
There is, it's called a UN Peacekeeping Force.
Hamas to power in 2007 and broke all past agreements with Israel and started to launch rockets into Israel. This lead to the blockade.
Hamas seized power after a civil war, brought on by an attempted coup by the PA backed by the US and Israel. This attempted coup led to the Hamas attacks on Israel. They did not randomly break all agreements and started shooting rockets.
Hamas was always deeply unhappy with the Israeli presence, but they hadn't become really openly violent before that point.
If you started to fire your gun on my home at random hours I would have locked your door from the outside and set your home on fire with, or without, your family inside. This is common sense.
What the fuck is this insane statement. Call the police?
I think you're being too pessimistic about IT security, particularly in the Financial sector. A lot of the security rules and audits aren't even government-run, it's the sector regulating itself. And trust me, they are pretty thorough and quite nitpicky about stuff.
The cost of failing an audit also often isn't even a fine, it's direct exclusion from a payment scheme. Basically, do it right or don't do it at all. Given that that is a strict requirement for staying in business, most of these companies will have sufficiently invested in IT security.
Of course it's not airtight, no system really is. But particularly in the financial sector most companies really do have their IT security in order.
That's not entirely true. In order to be allowed to keep processing transactions you have to adhere to strict rules which do get regularly audited. And then there's the whole "customers will switch to another more reliable party in case of outages or security problems". And trust me, I've seen first-hand that they do.
Not Tesla though, it relies on cameras only.
Polls do show a majority is in favour of some currently proposed border measures. "Overwhelming" is a bit much, but that might refer to people in favour of a stricter border policy but not necessarily in favour of the currently proposed measures.
Bezos might expect Trump to win and wants to avoid retaliatory actions from Trump if he does.
He knows Harris won't hate him for the lack of an endorsement, or at least won't vindictively come after him. Trump is... less mature.
Wouldn't wanna miss "Nazi gets kicked in the balls and cries" tbh.
Sometimes it can be used for comedic effect though. Like with "Fr*nce".
Am I sure about what? That men vastly outnumber women when it comes to commiting rape/sexual assault/abuse? Umm... Yeah?
No I was referring to the publicity thing. When a man does it it's not as big of a news story vs when a woman does it, as I believe to be anecdotally evidenced by the news stories I mentioned.
You sure? I remember reading a string of articles along the lines of "female teacher sentenced for sex with boy in her class", which rather disgustingly tended to attract a lot of "nice" and "I wish I was the boy" like comments.
Doesn't higher interests mean more money is spent paying those interests, meaning less money is available to spend on other things which in turn reduces the monetary supply in circulation which curbs inflation?
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
Did you completely fail to read the part "except where authorized"? That bit of legalese is a blanket "you can't use this software in a way we don't want to".
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything
Ah, you just have zero clue what you're talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we're done here.
Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn't really reinforce any of your points.
But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It's legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).
In legalese here, the "downloading" specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that's not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.
except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service
Can you read?
No, that's "Download to file" or "Download and save". Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just "downloading", doesn't mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.
The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.
Would they? The XZ utils backdoor was only discovered by what can only be described as an insanely attentive developer who happened to be testing something unrelated and who happened to notice a small increase in the startup time of the library, and was curious enough to go and figure out why.
Open does not mean "can't be backdoored".