You have a -1 for technical comprehension. There are passthrough charging products so you can both charge and use another peripheral through the same C port.
On Apple's web store, check out the number of 1 star reviews about the various USB-C adapters which out number all other reviews combined. The reviews about their many of their charge adapters are not any better.
And your point is what? You can charge and use data on the same port at the same time. That was my assertion and it's true. Apple's user rating have no bearing on whether you can or you can't.
My point is that Apple's poor product quality makes this a poor option. "Use our poor quality adapters so make up for the features we removed from our products!"
There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.
And the government agency only risks the citizen's money while the defendant risks persecution and a criminal conviction.
I have seen a lot of complaints about using Bluetooth for keyboard, mouse, and audio under standard office conditions. I cannot imaging using WiFi except where wireless networking is an absolute requirement.
You have a -1 for technical comprehension. There are passthrough charging products so you can both charge and use another peripheral through the same C port.
On Apple's web store, check out the number of 1 star reviews about the various USB-C adapters which outnumber all other reviews combined. The reviews about their many of their charge adapters are not any better.
If anything, the money will be used like Oklahoma use's the lotto money for "education". Instead of adding any money into the educational budget, they use the money to "fill up" that part of the budget, and then take the money that would have gone into that and it goes wherever they want. No additional money is actually added to that part of the budget.
California did the same thing. Money is fungible so the lottery proceeds for education displaced an equal amount which the legislature could then spend on pork.
I think that this might even end up in a lawsuit around regulation of intrastate commerce, but IANAL.
It is not a violation of interstate commerce if it applies equally to both devices which are sold in state and imported because then it would not be favoring in state sellers over out of state sellers.
And out of state sellers with no presence in the state aren't required to comply anymore so than they would be for sales tax. Now the state could go after the buyers of the out of state computers and try to make them pay it, but that's not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court to make them pay a $20 anti-human trafficking fee for a new computer.
Out of state sellers can still be required to comply as long as the same regulation applies to in state sellers. Enforcement would be tricky but they could certainly block imports of the offending devices.
Taxation for one(theoretically they could adjust the price accordingly, but there is only so much a person is able and willing to pay for sex). That's why most sex worker advocates are for decriminalization not legalization. Legalization means they would have to pay taxes.
If they make an income, they are still suppose to pay taxes whether the transaction is legal or not.
Simply requires the cooperation of all ISP's. Law enforcement and spies have fought tooth and nail to maintain their right to collect "meta data". Nothing is more meta than identifying which two parties are talking to each other.
They sure have. I believe they are seizing and retaining the content as well if only with the excuse that it also contains metadata.
No matter what kind of encryption used you can characterize streams by various types of signature.
It is a good thing that nobody would duplicate the signature of an already well known and secure encryption solution which is already used for routine connections.
Second ISP's could be compelled to implement IP packet tracking at the protocol level to pad something like a serial number to every stream but strip it out before delivery.
This is easy to defeat at a cost in only bandwidth and latency. Completely anonymous communications are possible where every piece of metadata is recorded and the increased cost in bandwidth means that there will be orders of magnitude more metadata to analyze. This does not even require centralized infrastructure and the pieces are in place to do it right now if two endpoints want secure and anonymous communications.
Finally one can also always introduce lag.
So to track who is talking to any server you characterize the stream. Then through a command and control server of their own introduce various inconspicuous amounts of lag at all ISP's for all the streams that match the characterization signature. Add in a binary search and you can track any connection back to it's source in under a minute. It also can also identify all proxies within it's borders and the order they are used according to the lag propagation. Even using a neighbors WIFI will not necessarily hide you.
That is clever but only works against low latency real time connections.
Since this is car to car instead of a centralized system, I find it less worrying in these respects than the efforts to shift from taxing gasoline to taxing road usage.
"the rightful owner of the stolen property was given ample chance to claim it...." Why do I doubt this? Not that I doubt that the requisite time had elapsed, but I am somewhat skeptical that they were dutifully informed in a timely manner that the property was available for them to reclaim it.
That is how it works when the property belongs to a citizen. Why would it be any different for a government agency?
Plus they used a bunch of shell companies, some of them run by a guy who either didn't exist or couldn't be located for testimony, to try to fool the court. Rule #1 of going to court is you don't try to fool the court. Judges don't like that, as these cockgoblins are finding out.
I do not think the judges care until it gets enough publicity.
I do not believe Hillary's position on net neutrality was any different from Trump's and net neutrality was not being enforced or implemented before the election anyway. So nothing has changed and nothing was going to change do to who was going to be elected.
I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.
Some of them actually have shockingly good customer service. They will be very patent and courteous, and one ransomware application even included a tech support ticketing system...
It makes sense. Unlike a government charted corporation, they have to rely on their reputation for repeat customers. They cannot rely on rent seeking enforced by the government.
That would just force it underground by disincentivizing victims from reporting the crime, and make it even harder for law enforcement to catch the crooks. Not every problem is a nail that needs to be hammered.
It is touching that you believe law enforcement has any interest in catching the ransomers.
Maybe not so fantastical. Recently, the Prime Minister of Canada had to stand up and explain the government's stance on paying ransom. Two or three Canadians had been held for ransom and just been executed by terrorists in Indonesia (I think) because he didn't pay the ransom and wouldn't help the families pay it either. He said that paying ransom would just be putting a target on all Canadians overseas. He is against any country paying ransom but, of course, he only makes the rules for one.
I would have been more impressed if he instead paid the ransom amount as a bounty for the kidnapper's heads.
So it does the same thing various positional sound standards have been doing on the PC for 10+ years? I guess it does not exist until Apple/Dolby do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just start using encrypted email. EAE - encrypt absolutely everything.
You have a -1 for technical comprehension. There are passthrough charging products so you can both charge and use another peripheral through the same C port.
On Apple's web store, check out the number of 1 star reviews about the various USB-C adapters which out number all other reviews combined. The reviews about their many of their charge adapters are not any better.
And your point is what? You can charge and use data on the same port at the same time. That was my assertion and it's true. Apple's user rating have no bearing on whether you can or you can't.
My point is that Apple's poor product quality makes this a poor option. "Use our poor quality adapters so make up for the features we removed from our products!"
Barnes & Noble is still trying to sell tablets.
It sounds more like they are selling (out) their customers.
There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.
And the government agency only risks the citizen's money while the defendant risks persecution and a criminal conviction.
I have seen a lot of complaints about using Bluetooth for keyboard, mouse, and audio under standard office conditions. I cannot imaging using WiFi except where wireless networking is an absolute requirement.
What you're missing is that usb-c products are still crappy.
Based on reviews, Apple's official USB-C adapters are not any better.
You have a -1 for technical comprehension. There are passthrough charging products so you can both charge and use another peripheral through the same C port.
On Apple's web store, check out the number of 1 star reviews about the various USB-C adapters which outnumber all other reviews combined. The reviews about their many of their charge adapters are not any better.
If anything, the money will be used like Oklahoma use's the lotto money for "education". Instead of adding any money into the educational budget, they use the money to "fill up" that part of the budget, and then take the money that would have gone into that and it goes wherever they want. No additional money is actually added to that part of the budget.
California did the same thing. Money is fungible so the lottery proceeds for education displaced an equal amount which the legislature could then spend on pork.
I think that this might even end up in a lawsuit around regulation of intrastate commerce, but IANAL.
It is not a violation of interstate commerce if it applies equally to both devices which are sold in state and imported because then it would not be favoring in state sellers over out of state sellers.
And out of state sellers with no presence in the state aren't required to comply anymore so than they would be for sales tax. Now the state could go after the buyers of the out of state computers and try to make them pay it, but that's not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court to make them pay a $20 anti-human trafficking fee for a new computer.
Out of state sellers can still be required to comply as long as the same regulation applies to in state sellers. Enforcement would be tricky but they could certainly block imports of the offending devices.
Taxation for one(theoretically they could adjust the price accordingly, but there is only so much a person is able and willing to pay for sex). That's why most sex worker advocates are for decriminalization not legalization. Legalization means they would have to pay taxes.
If they make an income, they are still suppose to pay taxes whether the transaction is legal or not.
Simply requires the cooperation of all ISP's. Law enforcement and spies have fought tooth and nail to maintain their right to collect "meta data". Nothing is more meta than identifying which two parties are talking to each other.
They sure have. I believe they are seizing and retaining the content as well if only with the excuse that it also contains metadata.
No matter what kind of encryption used you can characterize streams by various types of signature.
It is a good thing that nobody would duplicate the signature of an already well known and secure encryption solution which is already used for routine connections.
Second ISP's could be compelled to implement IP packet tracking at the protocol level to pad something like a serial number to every stream but strip it out before delivery.
This is easy to defeat at a cost in only bandwidth and latency. Completely anonymous communications are possible where every piece of metadata is recorded and the increased cost in bandwidth means that there will be orders of magnitude more metadata to analyze. This does not even require centralized infrastructure and the pieces are in place to do it right now if two endpoints want secure and anonymous communications.
Finally one can also always introduce lag.
So to track who is talking to any server you characterize the stream. Then through a command and control server of their own introduce various inconspicuous amounts of lag at all ISP's for all the streams that match the characterization signature. Add in a binary search and you can track any connection back to it's source in under a minute. It also can also identify all proxies within it's borders and the order they are used according to the lag propagation. Even using a neighbors WIFI will not necessarily hide you.
That is clever but only works against low latency real time connections.
Since this is car to car instead of a centralized system, I find it less worrying in these respects than the efforts to shift from taxing gasoline to taxing road usage.
The authentication is centralized.
"the rightful owner of the stolen property was given ample chance to claim it...." Why do I doubt this? Not that I doubt that the requisite time had elapsed, but I am somewhat skeptical that they were dutifully informed in a timely manner that the property was available for them to reclaim it.
That is how it works when the property belongs to a citizen. Why would it be any different for a government agency?
Why would NASA bother chasing this?
Did you mean why would a government agency be an obsessive manipulative overbearing bully? Is there any other type?
Plus they used a bunch of shell companies, some of them run by a guy who either didn't exist or couldn't be located for testimony, to try to fool the court. Rule #1 of going to court is you don't try to fool the court. Judges don't like that, as these cockgoblins are finding out.
I do not think the judges care until it gets enough publicity.
It's pretty sad that attorneys are able to do this shit for so long and for so much damage before the hammer gets dropped on them.
Let this be a lesson; government lawyers hate competition.
I do not believe Hillary's position on net neutrality was any different from Trump's and net neutrality was not being enforced or implemented before the election anyway. So nothing has changed and nothing was going to change do to who was going to be elected.
I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.
That is how terrible Bush really was.
The UK has already implemented this; many tracker sites are now blocked at ISP level.
How are they blocked? Via IP? Via the ISP's DNS servers? If the later do they also block third party DNS servers?
The next month the company's IT budget had quadrupled, so there's a happy ending.
Was the quadrupled IT budget used to pay back the executives? Wouldn't ransomwear expenses be part of the IT budget anyway?
Some of them actually have shockingly good customer service. They will be very patent and courteous, and one ransomware application even included a tech support ticketing system...
It makes sense. Unlike a government charted corporation, they have to rely on their reputation for repeat customers. They cannot rely on rent seeking enforced by the government.
Paying ransom should be a felony.
That would just force it underground by disincentivizing victims from reporting the crime, and make it even harder for law enforcement to catch the crooks. Not every problem is a nail that needs to be hammered.
It is touching that you believe law enforcement has any interest in catching the ransomers.
Maybe not so fantastical. Recently, the Prime Minister of Canada had to stand up and explain the government's stance on paying ransom. Two or three Canadians had been held for ransom and just been executed by terrorists in Indonesia (I think) because he didn't pay the ransom and wouldn't help the families pay it either. He said that paying ransom would just be putting a target on all Canadians overseas. He is against any country paying ransom but, of course, he only makes the rules for one.
I would have been more impressed if he instead paid the ransom amount as a bounty for the kidnapper's heads.
Paying ransom should be a felony.
You want to put people in prison for being the victim of a serious crime? Sounds a little harsh.
And stupid.
Why? The DoJ does it to suspects all the time.
So it does the same thing various positional sound standards have been doing on the PC for 10+ years? I guess it does not exist until Apple/Dolby do it.