Yes. Also, just think about the amount of proprietary / business sensitive info people are sharing on slack... even though they KNOW slack is a 3rd party
It usually points to a router, of which there can be hundreds of devices connected to it on your home network. Securing your wifi is one thing (which doesn't even absolutely prove that it was one of your home devices that did the torrenting, thanks to things like the KRACK attacks), but to then say "well you should secure your internal network such that torrenting cannot happen" is absolutely ridiculous. Torrent programs can work off any port, so that filters out port blocks. Is grandma going to install layer 7 traffic inspection so the grandkids can't doing illegal stuff on that newfangled interwebs? They'll switch to https then...
My point is that anyone with the technical know-how and very rudimentary internet access can bypass almost any restriction you try to put on it. What if the pirate is a minor and won't listen to their parents and keeps on torrenting? Do you permanently take their internet access away? How does that then stifle them for school homework or their social interaction? How can we expect each and every citizen to deploy NSA grade traffic monitoring on their router? The whole thing is ridiculous and the courts are still vehemently out of touch
IMO disabling buttons causes more trouble than it's worth - you can never guarantee the user hasn't clicked twice (because don't forget the code that disabling the button in the first place is relying on an event firing that tells you the button was clicked - this doesn't mean 2 events can't be queued before the event handler is called), and then you need a whole chunk of code around re-enabling the button depending on what has happened after the fact which is then a big source of bugs.
Does this not imply that its usefulness degrades depending on how much random data you need / the frequency at which you need it? For example if you ask for 8 bits of randomness within the same time-slice (either as a chunk of 8 bits or 8 separate invocations) - then you're only ever going to get 00000000 or 11111111 as your "pseudorandom" values (and this feels like it would be an easily re-producible outcome)
There is a limit on the frequency of requests, which makes sure the bit will be flipped several times before every request. Current enforced minimum is 20 milliseconds (roughly 50 bits/second). Lower values may be safe as well, but have not been tested yet.
Only for every returned row. The projection does not affect the underlying result set, it merely "shapes" the results you have received. WHERE clauses are always run before SELECT
Same, bought a 2700x and couldn't be happier... the extra cores does wonders for using something like intellij whilst browsing / gaming. You only need something like an 8700k / 8086k if you have a 100hz+ monitor and want to spend more money than necessary on a dead socket. AMD are really landing the uppercuts this time round
I've got a R5 1600X with overclocked RAM (3GHz) and a 144Hz display. I've yet to encounter a game that doesn't bottleneck on the GPU with vsync on. Either it hits beyond 144fps and it wouldn't matter, or its below 144fps bottlenecked on the GPU.
