I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who when passing through an airport security checkpoint is the only one who is more afraid of the TSA than I am of the terrorists. I have a far greater fear of getting arrested for forgetting to remove a leatherman from my bag or not emptying my water bottle than I am afraid of the plane getting blown up be some nutcase.
Attorneys for the state argue that the trial court and court of appeals properly followed earlier court decisions holding that a closed “container” that was on the person or in the immediate control of an arrested person at the time the arrest is made is subject to search without a warrant. They note that state and federal courts have held that the contents of a woman’s purse or a man’s wallet are subject to a warrantless search incident to an arrest, and argue that the contents of a cell phone should enjoy no greater protection or expectation of privacy than those items.
I guess that a reasonable standard would be to perform a physical search of the phone to insure that there is no object hidden in the phone (maybe some pills were placed behind the battery, or the like, or to insure that the device is actually a functional phone, and not a bomb contained in a phone case). An electronic search of the data is a completely different beast, and there is no reason for the arresting officer to access the data without a warrent.
On the other hand, I would hope that the same rules apply to wallets. Over the last couple of years, I have been in the habit of carrying a USB flash stick in my wallet, and if I ever got arrested (God forbid), it would be reasonable for them to search the wallet, but not to plug the flash device into a computer without a wallet.
I also fail to see what the issue the author has with the code he quoted:
for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss);
All that this does is set the variable ss to NULL, if s is a well-formed linked list with the ss field serving as the pointer to the next node. If the list is circular, you have an endless loop.
I'm assuming that the original did not have the semicolon at the end and was actually doing some processing in the body of the loop.
In any case, the only issue I see with this code is overloading ss as both a field in the linked list, and as a local variable.
My biggest complaint about Visual Studio is the horrible API designs that it fosters. Since the APIs is so difficult to use, and so poorly documented (I'm thinking ATL, and to a lesser extent MFC) the only effective way to use them is to take advantage of the hand-holding that VS provides.
Not a good day for google...first a OS that can only run web apps...completely rejected by the community...& now this...
Didn't Apple say exactly the same thing about the iPhone when it first came out? Look where that platform is now. A active app development platform, and even a vibrant jailbreak community, for those who feel Apple is too restrictive.
What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home." after it was translated by a PR flack.
I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.
I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting.
rest deleted
If this were message ever sent, I would hope the salutation would by shortened to "Dear Madam"
When you have a subscription to a (dead tree) newspaper, they need your contact info in order to fulfill the delivery to you. In the case of the Kindle, Amazon handles the order fulfillment, and the content provider simply gets a cut.
In a way, it is a lot like a newsstand. Anyone can come in off the street, drop their dollar and walk out with a paper. The publisher does not know who the ultimate consumer is, but simply sells it to the reseller. It is even possible for a newsstand owner to hold a copy of the paper for a customer (who perhaps has prepaid).
So, the real question what metaphor do we use. Is Amazon a newsstand, or are they more like the post office is a traditional subscription model. In the case of the post office, the publisher has to know who the end user is, but in the case of the newsstand, they do not.
Theoretically, but that requires a level of integration between the DHCP and DNS servers, that is not likely to be implemented. Especially if you are a large ISP, which is likely to have DHCP severs scattered about their entire network (at least one for each point of presence), but have only a handful of centralized DNS servers.
In Monopoly just remember what is 10 spaces away from free parking (actually, in either direction). Something tells me that those who try this "Free Parking" trick may well end up rolling a pair of fives on their next move.
I am very glad to see this go. I have always thought that the "trusted" traveler program is unfair and dangerous to everyone's civil liberties. Those who travel frequently should have the go through the same hassle as everyone else, and so will be more likely to complain and get the system fixed for all of us. If frequent traveler are segregated into their own first class lane, they have less incentive to work to change the system, and the rest of the traveling public do not fly enough to care. This is the same reason that racial profiling of any sort is wrong. If society decides that law enforcement needs to inconvenience people, then all people, especially those with the power to effect the decision should have to pay the price, and not just a relatively powerless minority.
Airport security, as a whole, is pretty much worthless, and seems only to serve the purpose of getting people used to law enforcement checkpoints ("papers, please") The one post 9/11/01 change that did matter was the reinforcing of the cockpit doors. Everything else the TSA (or private screeners, before the establishment of the TSA) did, from the banning of drinking water, to the confiscation of Leatherman tools has not done anything to make anyones flights any safer.
One issue with the DMCA is the way that it is applied to source code. If it was (and maybe it is, if someone could get a reasonable court to hear the case), source code of the following should be perfectly OK:
/* DO not delete the following under the DMCA */
if (flags &DRM_NO_SAVE_BIT) return ERROR;
save();
The same argument that says you can only used licensed DVD players to play the DVDs that you own.
Bingo!
And so, I hope that Nader wins, and we have a reasonable precedent, what could be leveraged to get some the more abusive parts the the DMCA overturned.
We already have too many gTLDs. What is the difference between foo.com and foo.net? Most likely foo.com got there first, and then foo.net was the second comer.
The only reason I can see for allowing new top-level domains is to provide a reference to organizations that already exist within another globally unique registry of some sort.
The best example of such a registry I can think of is the callsign of a radio station. These are globally unique (the first letter or two identified the country, and the rest is assigned by the radio regulatory authority of that country (in the US, the FCC). Thus, I could see adding a TLD.radio, which would be limited to callsigns as the second level domain. (e.g. wkrp.radio)
Other such global registries could include UPC or ISBN prefixes. PCI, USB or ethernet manufacturer IDs, or the like are also globally unique ID's and may be worth putting into DNS.
If you're going to do this sort of thing - adding seconds to the clock here or there - it shouldn't be decided upon by some review committee. There should be a planned algorithm that kicks in, and the simplest one that actually does the job should be used. The bottom line is that a watch should be able to do it. If you do this, you're able to program devices to account for leap seconds instead of having to manually put in fudges which is an error prone process. You also get the possibility of adding leap milli-seconds or micro-seconds so fine grained adjustments are possible where required, whereas it would be much harder (though not impossible) to do that if you're manually correcting.
It cannot be done. Leap seconds are dependent on unpredictable, chaotic natural events -- namely the fact that one day in not exactly 24 hours in length. The daily error is not constant, so the only way to determine when a leap second is required is through astronomical observations.
So, now that Firefox has made it extremely painful for me to test my SSL test sites; I don't. Just think about that when you complain that a site looks like s in firefox.
So you just install OpenSSL, create you own CA, and add the cert for your CA as a root cert in your browser. Now use your CA to sign and development certs you need. Of course, the public web site should use a cert signed by one of the big globally trusted CAs, but any development, or internal stuff can be managed by an internal CA.
Just get the root certificate that the self-signed certificates were signed with, and add that certificate to Firefox as a trusted certificate. Then you will get no more warnings when connecting to Netgear routers. If Netgear does not provide that certificate, that's Netgear's problem.
That is not possible because there is no root cert. This is exactly what self-signed means.
Slashdot Mirror
I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who when passing through an airport security checkpoint is the only one who is more afraid of the TSA than I am of the terrorists. I have a far greater fear of getting arrested for forgetting to remove a leatherman from my bag or not emptying my water bottle than I am afraid of the plane getting blown up be some nutcase.
Attorneys for the state argue that the trial court and court of appeals properly followed earlier court decisions holding that a closed “container” that was on the person or in the immediate control of an arrested person at the time the arrest is made is subject to search without a warrant. They note that state and federal courts have held that the contents of a woman’s purse or a man’s wallet are subject to a warrantless search incident to an arrest, and argue that the contents of a cell phone should enjoy no greater protection or expectation of privacy than those items.
I guess that a reasonable standard would be to perform a physical search of the phone to insure that there is no object hidden in the phone (maybe some pills were placed behind the battery, or the like, or to insure that the device is actually a functional phone, and not a bomb contained in a phone case). An electronic search of the data is a completely different beast, and there is no reason for the arresting officer to access the data without a warrent.
On the other hand, I would hope that the same rules apply to wallets. Over the last couple of years, I have been in the habit of carrying a USB flash stick in my wallet, and if I ever got arrested (God forbid), it would be reasonable for them to search the wallet, but not to plug the flash device into a computer without a wallet.
See his blog post
I also fail to see what the issue the author has with the code he quoted:
for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss);
All that this does is set the variable ss to NULL, if s is a well-formed linked list with the ss field serving as the pointer to the next node. If the list is circular, you have an endless loop.
I'm assuming that the original did not have the semicolon at the end and was actually doing some processing in the body of the loop.
In any case, the only issue I see with this code is overloading ss as both a field in the linked list, and as a local variable.
My biggest complaint about Visual Studio is the horrible API designs that it fosters. Since the APIs is so difficult to use, and so poorly documented (I'm thinking ATL, and to a lesser extent MFC) the only effective way to use them is to take advantage of the hand-holding that VS provides.
Not a good day for google...first a OS that can only run web apps...completely rejected by the community...& now this...
Didn't Apple say exactly the same thing about the iPhone when it first came out? Look where that platform is now. A active app development platform, and even a vibrant jailbreak community, for those who feel Apple is too restrictive.
What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home." after it was translated by a PR flack.
I wonder if this has anything to do with AMD (err Global Foundaries) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany?
I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.
I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.
And, of course YouTube is (owned by) Google.
IBM's Supreme Court Brief Says That Patents Drive Free Software developers crazy
Dear Sir or Madam, Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting. rest deleted
If this were message ever sent, I would hope the salutation would by shortened to "Dear Madam"
When you have a subscription to a (dead tree) newspaper, they need your contact info in order to fulfill the delivery to you. In the case of the Kindle, Amazon handles the order fulfillment, and the content provider simply gets a cut.
In a way, it is a lot like a newsstand. Anyone can come in off the street, drop their dollar and walk out with a paper. The publisher does not know who the ultimate consumer is, but simply sells it to the reseller. It is even possible for a newsstand owner to hold a copy of the paper for a customer (who perhaps has prepaid).
So, the real question what metaphor do we use. Is Amazon a newsstand, or are they more like the post office is a traditional subscription model. In the case of the post office, the publisher has to know who the end user is, but in the case of the newsstand, they do not.
Theoretically, but that requires a level of integration between the DHCP and DNS servers, that is not likely to be implemented. Especially if you are a large ISP, which is likely to have DHCP severs scattered about their entire network (at least one for each point of presence), but have only a handful of centralized DNS servers.
In Monopoly just remember what is 10 spaces away from free parking (actually, in either direction). Something tells me that those who try this "Free Parking" trick may well end up rolling a pair of fives on their next move.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I am very glad to see this go. I have always thought that the "trusted" traveler program is unfair and dangerous to everyone's civil liberties. Those who travel frequently should have the go through the same hassle as everyone else, and so will be more likely to complain and get the system fixed for all of us. If frequent traveler are segregated into their own first class lane, they have less incentive to work to change the system, and the rest of the traveling public do not fly enough to care. This is the same reason that racial profiling of any sort is wrong. If society decides that law enforcement needs to inconvenience people, then all people, especially those with the power to effect the decision should have to pay the price, and not just a relatively powerless minority.
Airport security, as a whole, is pretty much worthless, and seems only to serve the purpose of getting people used to law enforcement checkpoints ("papers, please") The one post 9/11/01 change that did matter was the reinforcing of the cockpit doors. Everything else the TSA (or private screeners, before the establishment of the TSA) did, from the banning of drinking water, to the confiscation of Leatherman tools has not done anything to make anyones flights any safer.
One issue with the DMCA is the way that it is applied to source code. If it was (and maybe it is, if someone could get a reasonable court to hear the case), source code of the following should be perfectly OK:
if (flags &DRM_NO_SAVE_BIT) return ERROR;
save();
The same argument that says you can only used licensed DVD players to play the DVDs that you own.
Bingo!
And so, I hope that Nader wins, and we have a reasonable precedent, what could be leveraged to get some the more abusive parts the the DMCA overturned.
You also have Marine One, Army One. Civilian aircraft carrying the president (a very rare event) would take the callsign Executive One.
Your copyright should have expired anyway...
Yes, but if the money has go somewhere, I would far rather see it go to the actual writers and actors, and the studios and suits.
The best example of such a registry I can think of is the callsign of a radio station. These are globally unique (the first letter or two identified the country, and the rest is assigned by the radio regulatory authority of that country (in the US, the FCC). Thus, I could see adding a TLD .radio, which would be limited to callsigns as the second level domain. (e.g. wkrp.radio)
Other such global registries could include UPC or ISBN prefixes. PCI, USB or ethernet manufacturer IDs, or the like are also globally unique ID's and may be worth putting into DNS.
...who will end up paying?
The people who refuse to secure their PCs. So far, I don't see a problem.
If you're going to do this sort of thing - adding seconds to the clock here or there - it shouldn't be decided upon by some review committee. There should be a planned algorithm that kicks in, and the simplest one that actually does the job should be used. The bottom line is that a watch should be able to do it. If you do this, you're able to program devices to account for leap seconds instead of having to manually put in fudges which is an error prone process. You also get the possibility of adding leap milli-seconds or micro-seconds so fine grained adjustments are possible where required, whereas it would be much harder (though not impossible) to do that if you're manually correcting.
It cannot be done. Leap seconds are dependent on unpredictable, chaotic natural events -- namely the fact that one day in not exactly 24 hours in length. The daily error is not constant, so the only way to determine when a leap second is required is through astronomical observations.
So, now that Firefox has made it extremely painful for me to test my SSL test sites; I don't. Just think about that when you complain that a site looks like s in firefox.
So you just install OpenSSL, create you own CA, and add the cert for your CA as a root cert in your browser. Now use your CA to sign and development certs you need. Of course, the public web site should use a cert signed by one of the big globally trusted CAs, but any development, or internal stuff can be managed by an internal CA.
Just get the root certificate that the self-signed certificates were signed with, and add that certificate to Firefox as a trusted certificate. Then you will get no more warnings when connecting to Netgear routers. If Netgear does not provide that certificate, that's Netgear's problem.
That is not possible because there is no root cert. This is exactly what self-signed means.