moutarde
Because historically (and also legally) the bounds between what is private and public have been defined by what was plausible at the time, not by what was hypothetically possible.
We know live in a world were what used to a be a hypothetical dream (or science fiction novel) has now become the mundane. The law can either adapt (via judicial rulings), be changed by voters or become an absurd anachronism that's good for nothing but justifying invasive surveillance.
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
1) Hides a bootloader on the devive that runs at reboot (assuming the BIOS allows it).
2) Pretends to be some kind of device (that most OS's have stock drivers for) that allows it to access main memory. Maybe it pretends to be a USB to firewire bridge (or something similar that gives it DMA).
I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a lot of exploits the NSA has discovered and not revealed (because it thinks they are "secret") have actually been sold to other governments by it's own contractors. By not revealing these exploits to citizens they are actually leaving them open to attack by foreign governments. Large companies trying to defend against industrial espionage are probably most at risk.
Isn't this the same justification that's used to shame the "pseudo" geek girls?
Surely the point is that the meaning of the text is dependant on the context supplied by the reader. So for an analysis of a text to a mean something (rather than nothing) is must not only define the subset of readers it is confined too, but also offer some justification of why it assumes those readers supply a common context (and what that common context is).
Without this context an analysis of a text is a largely a polemic unless the analysis is so absurd (or dissident) that it becomes a satire. Assuming a wide definition of "a text" then the majority of the media have been effectively "saying nothing" for the last 30+ years and academia have been satirising them.
Breach of The Official Secrets Act[1]. Although I think the investigation is probably focused more on Greenwald (and The Guardian) than Miranda.
[1] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expres...
YouTube also offers a Flash based API to show videos with adverts. If HTML5 wasn't feasible for Microsoft they could have paid Adobe for a licence to use the Flash runtime in their YouTube app.
Microsoft's original version of the app either:
a) deprived YouTube partners of their share of the revenue from adversing
b) caused advertisers to be charged for adverts that were not shown
The download feature also posed a problem to content providers who only hold a streaming licence to their content. If it didn't respect YouTube's no mobile flag (I'm unsure about this but it seems possible) it would also have caused issues for content providers who only held non-mobile streaming rights.
Microsoft now has a new version of the software that supposedly corrects these problems and is whining about openness and anti-trust. But why should Google now trust them? They treated not only Google, but also their partners and advertisers, like dirt. Now they want special treatment. It's like walking into someone's shop, insulting both their sales staff and their customers, then next week coming back and asking for discount.
How is Google being evil by imposing restrictions on a known bad actor in order to protect their partners?
I think this is largely an academic discussion. Some people drink a glass a wine every day, some people binge drink once/two times a week. If you consider alcoholism to be the point at which you can't withdraw without death resulting then both groups will pass. If you consider regular alcohol consumption as a potential psychiatric problem then both groups are suspect. But both groups still have:
A) People who just drink socially/for fun.
B) People who are alcohol dependant (in terms of a psychological crutch).
It's definitely part of the secret sauce, but I wouldn't call the moderation aggressive - it'd call it targeted to preserve culture. If MetaFilter has a first defence then it is the 5$ account wall, the second is the (almost legendary) snark, the third is the moderation. Moderation is almost always employed as a last resort, and it's rationale is normally documented.
The "secret sauce" of MetaFilter is really the community and everything else works to preserve that. The moderators of MetaFilter are the last resort in that process, but their are neither "aggressive" nor numerous, they are just very well chosen - not by algorithms, but by other existing moderators who actually understand the organisation/community they work in.
For example:
* Disney/Pixar now have two top free to play apps based on combining Temple Run with their existing IP. These games not only follow a proven winning formula, but they also piggy back on the movies marketing budgets to promote the games (to a much larger extent that Zynga could afford)
* Universal Pictures has cloned Temple Run Zynga style (but with much more original flair) to make their Despicable Me app game. Like Disney their massive film marketing budget drives the games success, and rather than users having to "warm up" to new characters, the lovable minions are already there for instant recognition/gratification.
* Rovio has made great strides making their original IP (Angry Birds) worthy of Disney level acclaim, but they've also heavily co-branded (via advertising and Angry Birds Star Wars) in order to increase profits.