They already have a better way to manage this than via which TLD the query is run against. On YouTube, it is apparent that they use IP address to determine the location of the client (that is, software client. Let's leave the argument about users being the product and the advertisers being the clients for another thread!) and thus block content in territories where they have been asked to prevent its distribution. Why not implement the same here?
One point I haven't seen raised in the debate thus far is that of "spent" convictions.
Here in the UK (and possibly other EU jurisdictions, I don't know), if you are convicted of a crime and have served your sentence, after a defined period the conviction will cease to appear on most employment-related criminal records checks (with obvious exceptions for high-risk roles such as those working with the young/vulnerable) and no longer have to be declared. This defined period varied with the severity of the crime involved/sentence served.
Historically, this meant potential employers in the lower-risk roles didn't know of convictions from a long time in the past unless the applicant volunteered the information, the HR staff involved had a far greater than average memory or could be bothered to pop down to the library and trawl the (barely indexed) microfiches of old newspapers on the slim chance that one of the current batch of applicants may have been convicted in a case considered significant enough to make it into the press. Now, it's just a couple of minutes on Google (or your other search provider of choice) to get this information that was considered unobtainable without compulsion or formal regulated checks when the law covering spent convictions was enacted.
This change is pretty fundamental, and MAY have been at least subconsciously involved in the court judgements that led to this discussion. That being said, IANAL. I do have a vague recollection of the statute being called the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" (there was a section about it and why it didn't apply on a set of security clearance application forms I had to complete over a decade ago, which, being a 20-year-old without so much as a speeding ticket, I only skimmed due to its irrelevance to me. Hence why my recollection is merely somewhat vague on the specifics), but I'm sure that if I'm wrong, some lawyer lurlikg in the/. undergrowth will jump in and correct me (and even if I'm right, will still likely jump in to add the date the act was passed).
My guess is, different groups involved here. IIRC the "law" in question is in fact case law, not (as yet) codified in statute or treaty. As such, the current state of the law (with all its lack of limitations, clarifications, etc) is the result of judgements made by the judiciary. IANAL so I won't start delving into the rights and wrongs of whether they should have the power to make judgements that interpret the law in such a way that they extend/expand it to such a great degree, but what I will say is that I believe that, should the decision be taken that the law is important enough to warrant codifying in treaty/statute, that codification should NOT be in the hands of the judiciary. My guess is that someone fairly senior in the EU bureaucracy has determined that this matter is getting enough column inches that it warrants codifying in an attempt to bring a degree of clarity (or, and I guess that this is just me being overly cynical, they've run out of things they have been tasked with and need to find something to do to use up remaining budget/resources to justify its maintenance/increase in the next round of budget negotiations). The obvious first step in this is to determine how the major players are interpreting and implementing the judgement thus far. They will likely then determine whether this is the interpretation of the judgement that they want to see applied, and codify legislation either to maintain the current way the industry is operating, or to encourage it in their preferred direction. Of course, the whole process is somewhat iterative, inasmuch as it only being a matter of time before some case hits the courts due to a disagreement over interpretations of this new law, and we'll be back to judges again (potentially on and on, ad infinitum).
Tl;dr... The questions weren't asked when the law was written because the law was never envisaged as covering these sorts of situations. Judges interpreted the law as encompassing them (this is within their power) but did not rewrite the underlying law (as this is NOT, or at least shouldn't be, within their power).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
My understanding is that this amendment was intended (and has since been interpreted) to protect free speech and the right to assemble and petition the govt for redress where THE GOVERNMENT is the cause of such grievances. I do not believe it applied in this case. That being said, IANAL. More to the point, I do agree that the reaction of the airline staff was grossly lacking in proportionality.
Probably because it's using the same SoC as the B model. IIRC the A and B variants were different not only in the layout/ports, but also the underlying SoCs (CPU, GPU, RAM combination). This would suggest that the major model identifier will be used to indicate the underlying SoC, while suffixes like '+' will be used to indicate layout/ports. This is, however, just a somewhat educated guess on my part...
Local dealers insure safety?
Personally, I'm no fan of any insurance company, but I'd still rather get insurance from them than from any dealer... Or did you mean ensure?
Actually, according to the summary, one half DID catch fire, the other half briefly became an aircraft (and let's not dwell on the fact that it did so with neither a properly filed flight plan, nor any communication with any form the air traffic control).
Are you also proposing that this browser not support plugins? Otherwise, what's to stop malware writers creating a plugin that captures input and phones home with it? Or are you suggesting that the browser only support plugins obtained from some kind of walled garden? Who will police it? In the end, the problem remains that people will be the weak link. When discussing security, even computer security, it has always been thus, and likely always will be.
And now I feel really daft, because up to this point I was thinking they meant draft as in 'non-final version'. As a result, the biggest question I was thinking of was 'sure, it's embarrassing that copies were sent to the dead, but more importantly, why not wait for the final version?'
I'm guessing here (I didn't read TFA), but people are probably more likely to keep their addresses updated with the DMV than they are with anything that could potentially lead to them being called up for service in the military. As such, to make sure that the database is as accurate as possible, it would make sense to periodically merge data from the DMV.
As for the records still being in the database, despite the demise of those to whom they refer, I'm one of those people who believes that once a record is in a database, unless it should never have been there in the first place, it should NOT be deleted. If no longer relevant, then set a status flag of some kind, but don't delete it. I'm not an American, and, more to the point, am not familiar with how data exchange occurs between state and federal government departments, but if it's anything like it is over here in the UK, when someone dies the death is registered with the local register office. That information is not automatically shared with the DVLA (our equivalent of your DMV, but just one at a national level) or any other organisation. If the US system is anything like ours (and with the added complications inherent with some government bodies being federal, some state and possibly some at even more localised levels, it would surprise me a HUGE amount if such automatic data exchange was commonplace), it's understandable that those records were not only still in the database, but were still marked as active. Would we rather they simply assumed that once a person reaches a given age that they are obviously dead and can hence have their record updated accordingly?
Obviously none of this excuses how that data merge was handled. If my assumption above is correct about the data from the DMV being imported purely to ensure that addresses and contact numbers are up to date, the obvious question that follows is why these older records led to letters being sent out. The date of birth field should only have been used for identifying records to receive address updates and, as such, if anyone born in the 1800s received such letters it would be due either to a poorly written query, or to the date of birth field already being wrong prior to the merge (or, of course both).
Perhaps you meant to say no one's going to jail AS A RESULT OF being born in the 80s. Your choice of wording can be taken to mean that being born in the 80s can be used as a universal defence to get away with any crime...
Closing the windows? I should think so too! Otherwise it would get pretty draughty once an airliner gets up to speed, even in the thinner air at higher altitudes!
Before this, the number stood at zero? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "before this, we have no f%@#ing clue what the number stood at because there is no data"???
I'm no MS shill, but in my opinion, the best way of sending all the MicroSoft drones to sleep is to keep up your kind of rhetoric. It's certainly sending me to sleep!
It's likely that the sensor for determining heart-rate will probably be located at the back of the display, and will work better if on the inside of your wrist (i.e. over the so-called pulse point). That's probably why it's intended to be worn on the inside of your wrist.
My understanding of the fifth (although, IANAL) is that whilst invoking it may cause prosecutors/LEOs to suspect, maybe even believe, that the drive contains evidence that you have committed a crime, the constitutional interpretation is that this suspicion/belief does not constitute evidence/proof and, as such, should not sway, or be used to sway, the decision making process of the court/jury.
If prosecutors can't prove the existence of an encrypted volume, they can't keep you in jail for not giving up the keys for something which might not exist.
Except that in this case, the prosecutors can (and did) use the testimony already given to prove (he was, after all, daft enough to admit it!) that encrypted data did exist, that it contained the files that they were looking to find, and that he could cooperate in their retrieval of the files but was unprepared to do so.
OK... so the fact that they have a 6 month retention policy is one thing, and does, indeed, pretty much invalidate Rigel47's post.
BUT it does raise a perhaps more important question...
IANAL, but I believe the IRS can audit you after up to 6 years. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that I think it is highly unlikely that they would accept the excuse of "I only have a 6-month retention policy on my receipts" as sufficient to allow you to get away without providing the relevant documentation, it does lead me to wonder... If they are forcing and enforcing long retention policies on those that they serve, why do they get away with only having to accommodate a twelfth of the retention period themselves?
Microsoft has two technologies in Windows Server 2012: Storage Spaces (which is LVM level), and ReFS. Both when used together can detect bit rot, but IIRC, only when the Storage Space volume is set to mirroring, nor parity.
Used to be true. In 2012R2, you can use integrity streams on parity spaces too, and get the corruption prevention there.
Slashdot Mirror
They already have a better way to manage this than via which TLD the query is run against. On YouTube, it is apparent that they use IP address to determine the location of the client (that is, software client. Let's leave the argument about users being the product and the advertisers being the clients for another thread!) and thus block content in territories where they have been asked to prevent its distribution. Why not implement the same here?
One point I haven't seen raised in the debate thus far is that of "spent" convictions.
/. undergrowth will jump in and correct me (and even if I'm right, will still likely jump in to add the date the act was passed).
Here in the UK (and possibly other EU jurisdictions, I don't know), if you are convicted of a crime and have served your sentence, after a defined period the conviction will cease to appear on most employment-related criminal records checks (with obvious exceptions for high-risk roles such as those working with the young/vulnerable) and no longer have to be declared. This defined period varied with the severity of the crime involved/sentence served.
Historically, this meant potential employers in the lower-risk roles didn't know of convictions from a long time in the past unless the applicant volunteered the information, the HR staff involved had a far greater than average memory or could be bothered to pop down to the library and trawl the (barely indexed) microfiches of old newspapers on the slim chance that one of the current batch of applicants may have been convicted in a case considered significant enough to make it into the press. Now, it's just a couple of minutes on Google (or your other search provider of choice) to get this information that was considered unobtainable without compulsion or formal regulated checks when the law covering spent convictions was enacted.
This change is pretty fundamental, and MAY have been at least subconsciously involved in the court judgements that led to this discussion. That being said, IANAL. I do have a vague recollection of the statute being called the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" (there was a section about it and why it didn't apply on a set of security clearance application forms I had to complete over a decade ago, which, being a 20-year-old without so much as a speeding ticket, I only skimmed due to its irrelevance to me. Hence why my recollection is merely somewhat vague on the specifics), but I'm sure that if I'm wrong, some lawyer lurlikg in the
My guess is, different groups involved here. IIRC the "law" in question is in fact case law, not (as yet) codified in statute or treaty. As such, the current state of the law (with all its lack of limitations, clarifications, etc) is the result of judgements made by the judiciary. IANAL so I won't start delving into the rights and wrongs of whether they should have the power to make judgements that interpret the law in such a way that they extend/expand it to such a great degree, but what I will say is that I believe that, should the decision be taken that the law is important enough to warrant codifying in treaty/statute, that codification should NOT be in the hands of the judiciary. My guess is that someone fairly senior in the EU bureaucracy has determined that this matter is getting enough column inches that it warrants codifying in an attempt to bring a degree of clarity (or, and I guess that this is just me being overly cynical, they've run out of things they have been tasked with and need to find something to do to use up remaining budget/resources to justify its maintenance/increase in the next round of budget negotiations). The obvious first step in this is to determine how the major players are interpreting and implementing the judgement thus far. They will likely then determine whether this is the interpretation of the judgement that they want to see applied, and codify legislation either to maintain the current way the industry is operating, or to encourage it in their preferred direction. Of course, the whole process is somewhat iterative, inasmuch as it only being a matter of time before some case hits the courts due to a disagreement over interpretations of this new law, and we'll be back to judges again (potentially on and on, ad infinitum). Tl;dr... The questions weren't asked when the law was written because the law was never envisaged as covering these sorts of situations. Judges interpreted the law as encompassing them (this is within their power) but did not rewrite the underlying law (as this is NOT, or at least shouldn't be, within their power).
Surprising??? You must not read the news much!
except there are the lovely post-9/11 laws about "not following the orders of flight crew"
Sorry to break this to you, but in the vast majority of cases:
Gate staff != flight crew
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
My understanding is that this amendment was intended (and has since been interpreted) to protect free speech and the right to assemble and petition the govt for redress where THE GOVERNMENT is the cause of such grievances. I do not believe it applied in this case. That being said, IANAL. More to the point, I do agree that the reaction of the airline staff was grossly lacking in proportionality.
Probably because it's using the same SoC as the B model. IIRC the A and B variants were different not only in the layout/ports, but also the underlying SoCs (CPU, GPU, RAM combination). This would suggest that the major model identifier will be used to indicate the underlying SoC, while suffixes like '+' will be used to indicate layout/ports. This is, however, just a somewhat educated guess on my part...
Local dealers insure safety? Personally, I'm no fan of any insurance company, but I'd still rather get insurance from them than from any dealer... Or did you mean ensure?
Actually, according to the summary, one half DID catch fire, the other half briefly became an aircraft (and let's not dwell on the fact that it did so with neither a properly filed flight plan, nor any communication with any form the air traffic control).
Are you also proposing that this browser not support plugins? Otherwise, what's to stop malware writers creating a plugin that captures input and phones home with it? Or are you suggesting that the browser only support plugins obtained from some kind of walled garden? Who will police it? In the end, the problem remains that people will be the weak link. When discussing security, even computer security, it has always been thus, and likely always will be.
And now I feel really daft, because up to this point I was thinking they meant draft as in 'non-final version'. As a result, the biggest question I was thinking of was 'sure, it's embarrassing that copies were sent to the dead, but more importantly, why not wait for the final version?'
I'm guessing here (I didn't read TFA), but people are probably more likely to keep their addresses updated with the DMV than they are with anything that could potentially lead to them being called up for service in the military. As such, to make sure that the database is as accurate as possible, it would make sense to periodically merge data from the DMV. As for the records still being in the database, despite the demise of those to whom they refer, I'm one of those people who believes that once a record is in a database, unless it should never have been there in the first place, it should NOT be deleted. If no longer relevant, then set a status flag of some kind, but don't delete it. I'm not an American, and, more to the point, am not familiar with how data exchange occurs between state and federal government departments, but if it's anything like it is over here in the UK, when someone dies the death is registered with the local register office. That information is not automatically shared with the DVLA (our equivalent of your DMV, but just one at a national level) or any other organisation. If the US system is anything like ours (and with the added complications inherent with some government bodies being federal, some state and possibly some at even more localised levels, it would surprise me a HUGE amount if such automatic data exchange was commonplace), it's understandable that those records were not only still in the database, but were still marked as active. Would we rather they simply assumed that once a person reaches a given age that they are obviously dead and can hence have their record updated accordingly? Obviously none of this excuses how that data merge was handled. If my assumption above is correct about the data from the DMV being imported purely to ensure that addresses and contact numbers are up to date, the obvious question that follows is why these older records led to letters being sent out. The date of birth field should only have been used for identifying records to receive address updates and, as such, if anyone born in the 1800s received such letters it would be due either to a poorly written query, or to the date of birth field already being wrong prior to the merge (or, of course both).
Perhaps you meant to say no one's going to jail AS A RESULT OF being born in the 80s. Your choice of wording can be taken to mean that being born in the 80s can be used as a universal defence to get away with any crime...
Closing the windows? I should think so too! Otherwise it would get pretty draughty once an airliner gets up to speed, even in the thinner air at higher altitudes!
"rodders no longer directly... " Is this something else to be blamed on Delboy?
Before this, the number stood at zero? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "before this, we have no f%@#ing clue what the number stood at because there is no data"???
Do you know any users who HAVEN'T been conditioned into clicking "yes" to any such prompt? (Please note, I said users, not admins)
I'm no MS shill, but in my opinion, the best way of sending all the MicroSoft drones to sleep is to keep up your kind of rhetoric. It's certainly sending me to sleep!
Remind me again how you're going to turn all WiFi and BlueTooth off?
It's likely that the sensor for determining heart-rate will probably be located at the back of the display, and will work better if on the inside of your wrist (i.e. over the so-called pulse point). That's probably why it's intended to be worn on the inside of your wrist.
My understanding of the fifth (although, IANAL) is that whilst invoking it may cause prosecutors/LEOs to suspect, maybe even believe, that the drive contains evidence that you have committed a crime, the constitutional interpretation is that this suspicion/belief does not constitute evidence/proof and, as such, should not sway, or be used to sway, the decision making process of the court/jury.
If prosecutors can't prove the existence of an encrypted volume, they can't keep you in jail for not giving up the keys for something which might not exist.
Except that in this case, the prosecutors can (and did) use the testimony already given to prove (he was, after all, daft enough to admit it!) that encrypted data did exist, that it contained the files that they were looking to find, and that he could cooperate in their retrieval of the files but was unprepared to do so.
From the moment you are arrested to the moment you have a lawyer, there is nothing in the world you can say to improve your legal outcome.
Technically not true...
If you say you want legal representation, that is:
a) Something you can say
b) Something that can improve your legal outcome
OK... so the fact that they have a 6 month retention policy is one thing, and does, indeed, pretty much invalidate Rigel47's post.
BUT it does raise a perhaps more important question...
IANAL, but I believe the IRS can audit you after up to 6 years. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that I think it is highly unlikely that they would accept the excuse of "I only have a 6-month retention policy on my receipts" as sufficient to allow you to get away without providing the relevant documentation, it does lead me to wonder... If they are forcing and enforcing long retention policies on those that they serve, why do they get away with only having to accommodate a twelfth of the retention period themselves?
Microsoft has two technologies in Windows Server 2012: Storage Spaces (which is LVM level), and ReFS. Both when used together can detect bit rot, but IIRC, only when the Storage Space volume is set to mirroring, nor parity.
Used to be true. In 2012R2, you can use integrity streams on parity spaces too, and get the corruption prevention there.