I’d guess that a lot of the encrypted systems had a password written on a sticky note on the desk or in the laptop bag. Encryption doesn’t do much unless you take the other sensible steps.
It’s more worrying to me that a doctor might not report a breach because the data is encrypted, but had the keys stolen along with the computer.
Lawyers can commission directly as captains in the USAF (and probably other branches) as long as they are not too old and can pass the fitness test. I think they also have to have passed a bar exam in one state, but it doesn't matter which one. They can get up to $65k of student loans repaid and don't even have to go through the same basic training as everyone else.
So (b) is slightly less trivial than saying a successful lawyer would not make captain in the military because most lawyers are one conversation, a few signatures, and one oath away from being a captain.
No recruiting, I started off by wanting to point out that military lawyers don't "make" captain, they are given that rank to start. Then I realized it sounded like a little like a recruitment talk so I decided to go all in.
I'd argue not. In both cases, a fully capable and prepared person has to jump through a couple of relatively trivial hoops. And when those hoops aren't possible to jump through it's a weird case. We can split that hair, but it's silly.
Ah, I understand now. Increasing the index of the outer planets is what would make the fit better, and the asteroid belt is a good way to justify it (and happens to be consistent with some other theories about the solar system).
You need a system with more than two planets. A system with only two planets is going to be linearly spaced on any type of scale.
Once you've filtered out systems with two or fewer planets, you need orbital measurements with decent precision to tell whether a plot of planet spacing is actually linear on a log scale or not. Measuring a planet's orbit requires a decent amount of observation (since we can't measure star/planet mass directly and don't usually measure period directly), so unconfirmed systems likely don't have good measurements.
It's likely that most of the unmentioned systems get filtered out by one of the above two criteria.
Also, even if we detect a system with N > 3 exo-planets, we often cannot tell if there are more than N, but below the threshold of detectability, making the plots incomplete and incorrect.
Additionally, there are some specialist/professional apps that charge quite a bit and they would be screwed by a limit.
Example: the iPad is the defacto standard for electronic flight bags (digital charts for pilots), and the market rate is $75 per year. Higher end subscriptions with terrain awareness and instrument approaches are $150 per year. A rule designed to limit freemium games would hurt the EFB market on the iPad.
While the new law isn't the best, this particular course of action based on the law seems completely reasonable.
New law -> new warrant -> no reason to continue wasting government $$ on fighting a court case that now has federal law clarifying the issues. Microsoft gets to save some money as well.
They want a warrant for Microsofts data. The warrant comment is probably aimed at US citizens data on a third parties servers.
EFF explicitly says the Cloud Act enables:
'Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.'
Features like being required to delete (actually delete) your information if you request it. Features like being required to show you what they know about you.
Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads.
"Required to show what they know" has been part of EU data protection law for decades. Max Schrems first made news by doing a data request to Facebook (which they complied with) in 2011. This is nothing new.
> Once you realize facebook/google/etc probably know better than you where you are going to eat lunch tomorrow you are going to opt out of everything you can, and that hurts their ability to sell targeted ads.
When people are willingly tagging the location of where they're having lunch and posting pictures of what they're eating, I can't say I agree. Preventing companies from tracking information users aren't aware of is a good thing though.
This is less attractive when you realize that all big companies will have a non-European subsidiary pay a non-European component of facebook for all their advertising needs, which would hugely lower the revenue base that 4% is calculated from.
Cooperations have had 2 years meeting GDPR requirements.
If you're late to the party, which I think the majority businesses in and out of Europe are, means you have made other priorities.
Question is whether or not how hard they hit when GDPR goes live 25th of May. That remains to be seen, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a `grace` period.
Even if you could somehow hide that, the penalty is 4% of global revenue or 20 million euros, whichever is higher. So That's still a very high fine since it's per violation and I'm sure I'm not alone in that I will be sending facebook, google and many other data companies these requests as soon as the law takes effect.
Except it didn't crush most of Intel's stuff. It had more physical cores but lost in actual performance. That's why Ryzen was such a big deal, it's the first time AMD has been able to compete with Intel since the Athlon days.
Bulldozer and Piledriver worked fine, but never came close to "crushing" Intel's offerings. They were a decent option for specific workloads that only cared about parallel performance on a budget. If you cared at all about single threaded performance or had a few extra bucks, it was/is worth it to buy a comparable Intel offering for the entire lifecycle of Bulldozer and Piledriver.
Check out cpu benchmarks on the fx line and get back to me. AMDs 300 dollar chip destroyed Intel's 1200 dollar server chip at the time. Hell that chip is still competitive to Intels latest and greatest
The FX series has high core counts but much lower single thread performance vs. Intel chips. For example, the FX-8350 has a respectable passmark score of 8949 which puts it in the ballpark of an i7 3770, which came out 3 quarters earlier, but its single thread passmark rating of 1509 is significantly less than 2069 for the i7 3770. The FX-8350 initially cost around $200 and the i7 3770 cost around $350. So the FX wasn't ever really competitive with Intel and certainly never crushed an Intel server chips.
Don't forget the i7-3770 has half the TDP of the FX-8350 despite the overwhelmingly superior real-world performance in every meaningful metric.
I'm not sure in what world anyone could think the FX series ever "dominated" Intel chips at the time, much less current ones, in the datacenter -- unless they are literally delusional.
Those have desktop class high TDP CPUs in them. The distinction here is that this is a low(ish) TDP CPU intended for laptops where battery life matters.
It’s more worrying to me that a doctor might not report a breach because the data is encrypted, but had the keys stolen along with the computer.