Levine has convinced Kings County Council that his unique business is at risk if the tower goes ahead as planned.
Anyone care to bet that the reality is that, "Levine has convinced Kings County Council that he will be a huge pain in their collective necks if the tower goes ahead as planned." Sounds like everyone already knows that the carrier is going to appeal and the county will not oppose the appeal. Can't say as I fault their approach.
You will no doubt be denied coverage based on obvious pre-existing peanut allergy and by extension allergy to any foods. Or styrofoam. Or cardboard. Or air....
Seriously, I'm human (or so I'd have you believe), as such I am susceptible to getting sick, injured, and eventually dying. Sooner or later this applies to all of us. Likewise in the past I've been sick and injured. This also probably applies to everyone. Granted some are more likely than others to be sick or injured. I guess where it gets "sticky" is that some times this is self-inflicted and some times it isn't. The hard part is the insurance companies don't seem to take that into account - they just want an easy out when you become more of a liability than an asset. You talk about "death panels" - seems to me that's more the mindset of big insurance than big government. Even when your upkeep becomes costly to the.gov, you can still vote. At least while they're still holding elections....
If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? Think of the children.
Once it's out of your hands, I think the only safe course of action is to assume that they've made a bit-for-bit copy of the drive and installed a persistent, impossible-to-detect back door. Chances are slim that they're actually doing this, but the technology exists and since there is no way for you to know that this didn't happen I think you need to assume that it did. The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the.gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.
As many others have pointed out, if your data really is that sensitive leave it at home. I'd think twice about accessing it remotely too.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
OK so assume CA mandates this and then follows up with mandating a law that requires every vehicle in CA to be fitted with some kind of GPS or similar tracking device: 1) What happens when the tracker in my car suffers some kind of *mysterious* electronic failure? Am I going to be fined? 2) Who is going to pay for the tracker and the installation? 3) What happens when a faulty tracker drains the battery? (Oddly enough I've seen this happen in a fleet vehicle) 4) How do I get the lucrative contract to maintain this massive tracking infrastructure system?!! 5) Anyone want to bet that this gizmo won't also be recording speed - insurance companies probably value that info more than distance. Betcha law enforcement will have de facto rights to query your gizmo right there on the spot when they pull you over - probably have a built in blue tooth so they don't even need to get out of the cruiser to write you up.
We're already paying per mile in the form of taxes on each gallon of gas we buy. They must be gearing up to address the revenue threat posed by the as-yet impractical plug-in hybrids. Crappy idea all around in my opinion.
If there was any kind of mass transit, I would take it vs. the 2 hours I spend behind the wheel each day. I'll go out on a limb and say I'd take it at the cost of an additional 30-60 minutes transit time; at least I could get stuff done on the bus/train and I bet I'd have lower blood pressure to boot.
(Actually, that's the street address for Facebook corporate headquarters. If I wanted you to have my *real* address, I'll tell you. The Hangman developer can well, go hang.)
This isn't hard stuff people - you can put whatever you want in those little fields and in most cases you can just leave them blank.
Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application? Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile? Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately? I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired, you will need to provide accurate data including birth date, SSN, etc. Employers need this to comply with tax codes, insurance, etc. I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile. Of course IANAL, don't work in HR, etc. so don't listen to me.
Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information. Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future, but I pretty much don't need to work for someone who can't explain what data they require, why they need it, and what they will use it for.
Funny, I've heard the same arguments against implementing encrypted protocols and banning plain text protocols too many times to count:
1) That's not possible on a LAN because we have ______ select from (switches/firewalls/antivirus/leprechauns)
2) That's not possible because someone would have to hack into the Internet to see that traffic
3) That's not possible because anyone who could do something that tricky would not waste their time on us
4) It doesn't matter because we don't have any _____ select from (credit cards/SSNs/personal info/nuclear launch codes)
In my experience and at the risk being modded a troll (believe me, that is not my intent) these assertions are typically made by system admins who resent being asked to change the way they do anything and generally won't take a step in the right direction until they've already been burned. Let me state that these arguments are all wrong. However, let's conveniently side-step the proving of why these assertions are wrong for now. Instead let's examine the alternatives:
-Replace Telnet/RSH with SSH -Replace FTP with SFTP or SCP -Replace HTTP with HTTPS (at least for sensitive data and/or authentication)
In all cases, implementing a secure access method is relatively trivial. Even if you don't believe in Santa Claus - is it going to really cause you that much hassle to leave a couple of cookies and a glass of milk out on Christmas Eve just in case?
It's the Ron Popeil/Billy Mays/Home Shopping Network sales pitch for IT Security: "It's a firewall, it's an intrusion prevention system, it will filter your web connections, it even provides anti-virus. But wait! It also acts as a router, and it even has a built in gigabit switch module. Now - how much do you think you're going to pay for this? Not $20,000 - not $15,000, not $10,000; no - all this can be yours for the low low price of $9995.95...."
I think I'm going to spend 10 minutes and set up a couple of new free-email accounts on Yahoo, MSN, Gmail with SRJC in the name just to see if they contact me. Maybe even use one to send an inquiry about how one goes about enrolling in their school to their admissions department. They must be doing something really right if they are able to hassle tuition-paying students in these tough economic times over something so ridiculous.
There you go, applying analysis and logic to political grandstanding...
Seriously - if they have identified sites they want to blacklist, why blacklist instead of investigate and prosecute? I have to assume there are probably some jurisdictions that don't have resources to investigate and prosecute KP, but probably not too many. Go after the people posting and accessing the content, collect evidence, build a case, and put them on trial. I would suspect that actually doing the law enforcement and legal legwork will yield more benefit in the long run, the people accessing KP on unencrypted, public access websites could likely lead to exposing less public transfer methods. Simply blocking the general public from hitting sites creates new opportunities for abuse of power, poor implementation, etc. and doesn't seem to actually do much to advance the effort to stop the exploitation of children. At best it forces it further underground.
My 2 cents, I could be wrong.
#3 - Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. - Geneva Conventions. You should be aware that at NO time has any Islamic force, least of all the terrorist forces, ever followed ANY portion of the Geneva Conventions.
A little digging on the internet turns up a list of signatories to the Geneva convention including a number of "Islamic" countries - see the list at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P (International Red Cross). For what it's worth, the Geneva Conventions are signed by nation states, not nationless entities. Also it should be noted that unfortunately being a signatory to the Convention does not necessarily mean that the Conventions are observed fully by a nation's forces in the field.
Not to flame, but are you carrying a balance on that card? If so what's the rate? Could you get a better rate on a card that doesn't offer rebates and would that better rate equate to more or less money than you see on the rebates?
SHHHHH! The first rule of usenet is don't talk about....
Also let's hope that the terrists don't figure out how to send a CD-ROM/DVD/Memory-chip/iPod/digicamera/phone/etc. through the mails or FedEx!!!!
OMG Lookit all the potential terrist storage devices RIGHT OUT THERE IN THE OPEN! Won't someone please think of the children and go confiscate these things before the terrorists win?!
Could be the worst joejob ever... Who knows? Not me. The guy is dead and only way to ask him any questions is with a ouija board.
The case is closed, nothing to see here - stop asking questions please. I'd love to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory, but why would "they" wait this long if "they" were up to no good?
"Clicking through" a slideshow is probably about the same as the "sleeping through" filmstrip content of my youth. Granted, we didn't have filmstrips every day, but some teachers were a lot more filmstrip prone than others.
I agree - this is definitely a cover story for the real mission: establishing an evil lunar base. With their control of the Internets and a moon base, they will become unstoppable.
Also, I'd like to see some kind of statistics on how many sites they reviewed in each domain and while we're at it, a rough overview of their methodology in categorizing a site as being "dangerous" would be nice too. Finally, in the interest of being good "netizens" - I'd be really fascinated to hear how many site admins or hosting companies they notified about the "dangerous" content they discovered.
What else flouresces blue under that kind of light? I wonder if there's a possible false positive from some other compound totally unrelated to the spray or explosives?
I don't think they're planning to use this as a general screening method for luggage - it sounds to me like it's probably more applicable to more invasive baggage checks. So if you're on a watch list, look shifty, or are a randomly picked lucky winner your stuff gets the spray-test treatment.
That's purely speculation on my part based on a quick read of TFA.
I love the fact that this is a California court. California being the leader in privacy protection and breach notifications and everything with their landmark SB-1386 legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Levine has convinced Kings County Council that his unique business is at risk if the tower goes ahead as planned.
Anyone care to bet that the reality is that, "Levine has convinced Kings County Council that he will be a huge pain in their collective necks if the tower goes ahead as planned." Sounds like everyone already knows that the carrier is going to appeal and the county will not oppose the appeal. Can't say as I fault their approach.
You will no doubt be denied coverage based on obvious pre-existing peanut allergy and by extension allergy to any foods. Or styrofoam. Or cardboard. Or air....
Seriously, I'm human (or so I'd have you believe), as such I am susceptible to getting sick, injured, and eventually dying. Sooner or later this applies to all of us. Likewise in the past I've been sick and injured. This also probably applies to everyone. Granted some are more likely than others to be sick or injured. I guess where it gets "sticky" is that some times this is self-inflicted and some times it isn't. The hard part is the insurance companies don't seem to take that into account - they just want an easy out when you become more of a liability than an asset. You talk about "death panels" - seems to me that's more the mindset of big insurance than big government. Even when your upkeep becomes costly to the .gov, you can still vote. At least while they're still holding elections....
If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? Think of the children.
Once it's out of your hands, I think the only safe course of action is to assume that they've made a bit-for-bit copy of the drive and installed a persistent, impossible-to-detect back door. Chances are slim that they're actually doing this, but the technology exists and since there is no way for you to know that this didn't happen I think you need to assume that it did. The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the .gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.
As many others have pointed out, if your data really is that sensitive leave it at home. I'd think twice about accessing it remotely too.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
OK so assume CA mandates this and then follows up with mandating a law that requires every vehicle in CA to be fitted with some kind of GPS or similar tracking device:
1) What happens when the tracker in my car suffers some kind of *mysterious* electronic failure? Am I going to be fined?
2) Who is going to pay for the tracker and the installation?
3) What happens when a faulty tracker drains the battery? (Oddly enough I've seen this happen in a fleet vehicle)
4) How do I get the lucrative contract to maintain this massive tracking infrastructure system?!!
5) Anyone want to bet that this gizmo won't also be recording speed - insurance companies probably value that info more than distance. Betcha law enforcement will have de facto rights to query your gizmo right there on the spot when they pull you over - probably have a built in blue tooth so they don't even need to get out of the cruiser to write you up.
We're already paying per mile in the form of taxes on each gallon of gas we buy. They must be gearing up to address the revenue threat posed by the as-yet impractical plug-in hybrids. Crappy idea all around in my opinion.
If there was any kind of mass transit, I would take it vs. the 2 hours I spend behind the wheel each day. I'll go out on a limb and say I'd take it at the cost of an additional 30-60 minutes transit time; at least I could get stuff done on the bus/train and I bet I'd have lower blood pressure to boot.
That's why my profile lists my address at:
156 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1605
(Actually, that's the street address for Facebook corporate headquarters. If I wanted you to have my *real* address, I'll tell you. The Hangman developer can well, go hang.)
This isn't hard stuff people - you can put whatever you want in those little fields and in most cases you can just leave them blank.
Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application? Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile? Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately? I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired, you will need to provide accurate data including birth date, SSN, etc. Employers need this to comply with tax codes, insurance, etc. I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile. Of course IANAL, don't work in HR, etc. so don't listen to me.
Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information. Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future, but I pretty much don't need to work for someone who can't explain what data they require, why they need it, and what they will use it for.
Funny, I've heard the same arguments against implementing encrypted protocols and banning plain text protocols too many times to count:
1) That's not possible on a LAN because we have ______ select from (switches/firewalls/antivirus/leprechauns)
2) That's not possible because someone would have to hack into the Internet to see that traffic
3) That's not possible because anyone who could do something that tricky would not waste their time on us
4) It doesn't matter because we don't have any _____ select from (credit cards/SSNs/personal info/nuclear launch codes)
In my experience and at the risk being modded a troll (believe me, that is not my intent) these assertions are typically made by system admins who resent being asked to change the way they do anything and generally won't take a step in the right direction until they've already been burned. Let me state that these arguments are all wrong. However, let's conveniently side-step the proving of why these assertions are wrong for now. Instead let's examine the alternatives:
-Replace Telnet/RSH with SSH
-Replace FTP with SFTP or SCP
-Replace HTTP with HTTPS (at least for sensitive data and/or authentication)
In all cases, implementing a secure access method is relatively trivial. Even if you don't believe in Santa Claus - is it going to really cause you that much hassle to leave a couple of cookies and a glass of milk out on Christmas Eve just in case?
That link for the Windows Live One Care is AWESOME. Where do I sign up for that kind of service?
It's the Ron Popeil/Billy Mays/Home Shopping Network sales pitch for IT Security: "It's a firewall, it's an intrusion prevention system, it will filter your web connections, it even provides anti-virus. But wait! It also acts as a router, and it even has a built in gigabit switch module. Now - how much do you think you're going to pay for this? Not $20,000 - not $15,000, not $10,000; no - all this can be yours for the low low price of $9995.95...."
I think I'm going to spend 10 minutes and set up a couple of new free-email accounts on Yahoo, MSN, Gmail with SRJC in the name just to see if they contact me. Maybe even use one to send an inquiry about how one goes about enrolling in their school to their admissions department. They must be doing something really right if they are able to hassle tuition-paying students in these tough economic times over something so ridiculous.
There you go, applying analysis and logic to political grandstanding... Seriously - if they have identified sites they want to blacklist, why blacklist instead of investigate and prosecute? I have to assume there are probably some jurisdictions that don't have resources to investigate and prosecute KP, but probably not too many. Go after the people posting and accessing the content, collect evidence, build a case, and put them on trial. I would suspect that actually doing the law enforcement and legal legwork will yield more benefit in the long run, the people accessing KP on unencrypted, public access websites could likely lead to exposing less public transfer methods. Simply blocking the general public from hitting sites creates new opportunities for abuse of power, poor implementation, etc. and doesn't seem to actually do much to advance the effort to stop the exploitation of children. At best it forces it further underground. My 2 cents, I could be wrong.
#3 - Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. - Geneva Conventions. You should be aware that at NO time has any Islamic force, least of all the terrorist forces, ever followed ANY portion of the Geneva Conventions.
A little digging on the internet turns up a list of signatories to the Geneva convention including a number of "Islamic" countries - see the list at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P (International Red Cross). For what it's worth, the Geneva Conventions are signed by nation states, not nationless entities. Also it should be noted that unfortunately being a signatory to the Convention does not necessarily mean that the Conventions are observed fully by a nation's forces in the field.
Well first you have to assume that the car is a sphere...
Not to flame, but are you carrying a balance on that card? If so what's the rate? Could you get a better rate on a card that doesn't offer rebates and would that better rate equate to more or less money than you see on the rebates?
Also let's hope that the terrists don't figure out how to send a CD-ROM/DVD/Memory-chip/iPod/digicamera/phone/etc. through the mails or FedEx!!!!
OMG Lookit all the potential terrist storage devices RIGHT OUT THERE IN THE OPEN! Won't someone please think of the children and go confiscate these things before the terrorists win?!
Could be the worst joejob ever... Who knows? Not me. The guy is dead and only way to ask him any questions is with a ouija board. The case is closed, nothing to see here - stop asking questions please. I'd love to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory, but why would "they" wait this long if "they" were up to no good?
I never could get the hang of Thursdays...
"Clicking through" a slideshow is probably about the same as the "sleeping through" filmstrip content of my youth. Granted, we didn't have filmstrips every day, but some teachers were a lot more filmstrip prone than others.
The same can be achieved by humming the second F below middle C.
Isn't that the "Brown Note"?
Plaintext ASCII. I don't see the need for anything more than courier and perhaps bold/italic/underline for emphasis. Bring back Gopher!
I for one welcome my new Google overlords!
Also, I'd like to see some kind of statistics on how many sites they reviewed in each domain and while we're at it, a rough overview of their methodology in categorizing a site as being "dangerous" would be nice too. Finally, in the interest of being good "netizens" - I'd be really fascinated to hear how many site admins or hosting companies they notified about the "dangerous" content they discovered.
What else flouresces blue under that kind of light? I wonder if there's a possible false positive from some other compound totally unrelated to the spray or explosives?
I don't think they're planning to use this as a general screening method for luggage - it sounds to me like it's probably more applicable to more invasive baggage checks. So if you're on a watch list, look shifty, or are a randomly picked lucky winner your stuff gets the spray-test treatment. That's purely speculation on my part based on a quick read of TFA.
I love the fact that this is a California court. California being the leader in privacy protection and breach notifications and everything with their landmark SB-1386 legislation.