I may have been lucky, but I prevailed because I worked hard for two years and persisted. I worked much harder that the other side, and knew more about this area of law than their attorneys.
Does the amount they (will?) pay you even offset the time you spent on the case? Put another way, would you have made more or less money if you could have done photography instead of the legal work for those two years?
In the end, some people will require more care than others. Insurance is about providing a guarantee of care before it happens, without knowing whether it will happen. Financially it spreads the risk among all members, converting a big unknown into a small known regular payment. Perfect genetic testing would just make this known before it happens, rather than after. We could continue to allow care just as before. The only snag is that since we'd know who would be requiring care, those who wouldn't might not want to have to pay for those that would.
I'd email this story to Reiser's lawyers, but for 2 things:
1) I had a VW, and the leak was idiosyncratic to that model. He drove a Civic.
2) I think he's guilty.
Just curious, if you had evidence related to a case but thought that the defendant was guilty, would you avoid reporting it? It seems you should let the court make the determination, since it sees all the evidence, including some those outside the courtroom never know about.
The problem is that laws are indifferent tools with great power. The conditions they can be applied under are the filter that can prevent abuse of the tool. Carelessly-crafted conditions can allow the law (tool) to be used to hurt others. A law designed to protect people from online harassment would also allow offline injury (jail, prison) by those who would abuse the law. Unless the former greatly outweighs the latter, the law should not be created. These days in the US the greatest threat to most people is becoming not criminals, but people who abuse laws (or simply disobey them and get immunity by being a public "servant"). There doesn't seem any alternative to having judges who aren't crooked; no amount of legalese will make a law immune to being abused by such judges.
I'll take dry content over almost any other website I visite these days, including Slashdot. Loads instantly, no crap to distract me, works in any browser.
You could use a capacitor to power this mechanism instead of a battery. It wouldn't need to last very long -- just long enough to scramble the RAM on power-down. It would be more reliable than a battery.
OK, so I just need to remove this scrambling module's capacitor before abruptly curring power to the system and removing DRAM for analysis. Wouldn't it make more sense for the software to clear any sensitive data immediately after it's done with it?
As a reminder, all harddrives are fitted with an emergency capacitor. If the hard drive looses power while the head is traveling there's a risk for a head crash. Thus, once power is lost, the capacitor will fire up the motor for one last push toward the parking space. if you have an external hard drive listen for the click that happens right after you pull the power.
By emergency capacitor, do you mean flywheel, as in, the disks spinning at high RPM that pack considerable energy? I've never seen any large capacitors on hard drives.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Indeed, all patriotic Americans need to ask themselves this question of the government, particularly the executive branch. If indeed, they aren't doing anything wrong, why must they keep everything so secret - even from Congress and the Courts?
Just wanted to point out that the quote is good to apply to non-persons, like governments, which have no need for privacy in general, unlike humans. People who work in these organizations do so voluntarily, and they have private lives outside of work.
Holy shit dude. I read the section on the BSD and it's about as fucking neutral as it gets, reading like a Wikipedia entry. It's along the lines of BSD = virtually public domain, so anyone can use the code and you have virtually no control over how it's used; if you want to prevent use in closed software, use another license. You remind me of someone on a message board who always complains about licenses, constantly seeing politics where there are none, but never seeing that he brings the politics and drama everywhere with him. I'm really not intending to flame here, just give some realistic feedback.
The point of doing the encryption in hardware is performance, it does not add any additional security.
I'd say it always reduces security, since the data is in the clear between the drive and the computer, it adds yet another part of the system that must be trusted, and it's very hard to verify that the drive is doing any encryption at all.
I suspect the former interpretation is more likely. This laser isn't so impressive when you realise it takes less power than my computer monitor... when my computer monitor is turned off.
But isn't the key feature that it dissipates this 1 watt x 10 seconds within a miniscule amount of time? It's similar to how a needle concentrates a force on a very small area, giving it great strength, or a hammer applies all the force built up over the swing into a very short time.
Can any kind government access be considered unauthorized anymore?
Sure. I can say that nobody is authorized to access my computer except myself. Anyone doing so is therefore unauthorized. If you meant, can it be considered illegal? Yes again. The real question: will the government be held to the law? No, because the US government considers itself above the law, and since it enforces it, it won't be held to the law.
I had bought a Toshiba HD-A3 HD DVD player for $159. Feature complete. Booted to drawer open in under 30 seconds. Loaded all movies in under 30 seconds.
Why are you not outraged that it takes half a minute just to open the drawer?!? What the hell is wrong with these things taking more than a second to open the tray, and less than 5 to start playing the feature? I just don't get it.
And, the driver can understand what the passenger is saying the first time. On a mobile, one has to devote more attention to deciphering the sounds as words.
Well hopefully, they'll say "if you come out and say that you throttle after X gb transferred or throttle throughput at Y mbps, or throttle protocol Z, then we'll allow it." It'll put an end to "unlimited" bandwidth, secret caps, and so on, and force the companies to actually participate in a market without fraud, which is probably the best we can realistically hope for.
Honesty in this regard would allow more competition from companies who really do offer unlimited usage, since their claims wouldn't be muddied by the lies from companies like Concast.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the amount they (will?) pay you even offset the time you spent on the case? Put another way, would you have made more or less money if you could have done photography instead of the legal work for those two years?
Damn, at first I read the subject as "My parent" and was feeling sympathy for the environment you had to grow up in.
In the end, some people will require more care than others. Insurance is about providing a guarantee of care before it happens, without knowing whether it will happen. Financially it spreads the risk among all members, converting a big unknown into a small known regular payment. Perfect genetic testing would just make this known before it happens, rather than after. We could continue to allow care just as before. The only snag is that since we'd know who would be requiring care, those who wouldn't might not want to have to pay for those that would.
Putting up with the drawbacks of living in the city should entitle one to better internet service than someone in the country!
Just curious, if you had evidence related to a case but thought that the defendant was guilty, would you avoid reporting it? It seems you should let the court make the determination, since it sees all the evidence, including some those outside the courtroom never know about.
Did you include that detail because cross-dressers are known to be violent or something?
* Product that even Apple fanboys consider high-priced
The problem is that laws are indifferent tools with great power. The conditions they can be applied under are the filter that can prevent abuse of the tool. Carelessly-crafted conditions can allow the law (tool) to be used to hurt others. A law designed to protect people from online harassment would also allow offline injury (jail, prison) by those who would abuse the law. Unless the former greatly outweighs the latter, the law should not be created. These days in the US the greatest threat to most people is becoming not criminals, but people who abuse laws (or simply disobey them and get immunity by being a public "servant"). There doesn't seem any alternative to having judges who aren't crooked; no amount of legalese will make a law immune to being abused by such judges.
I'll take dry content over almost any other website I visite these days, including Slashdot. Loads instantly, no crap to distract me, works in any browser.
OK, so I just need to remove this scrambling module's capacitor before abruptly curring power to the system and removing DRAM for analysis. Wouldn't it make more sense for the software to clear any sensitive data immediately after it's done with it?
By emergency capacitor, do you mean flywheel, as in, the disks spinning at high RPM that pack considerable energy? I've never seen any large capacitors on hard drives.
Will you? I'm not assured.
Where are the action-figure-sized chairs for the Ballmer figure to throw? It'd have to come with a lot of them, not just one or two.
Just wanted to point out that the quote is good to apply to non-persons, like governments, which have no need for privacy in general, unlike humans. People who work in these organizations do so voluntarily, and they have private lives outside of work.
Holy shit dude. I read the section on the BSD and it's about as fucking neutral as it gets, reading like a Wikipedia entry. It's along the lines of BSD = virtually public domain, so anyone can use the code and you have virtually no control over how it's used; if you want to prevent use in closed software, use another license. You remind me of someone on a message board who always complains about licenses, constantly seeing politics where there are none, but never seeing that he brings the politics and drama everywhere with him. I'm really not intending to flame here, just give some realistic feedback.
I'd say it always reduces security, since the data is in the clear between the drive and the computer, it adds yet another part of the system that must be trusted, and it's very hard to verify that the drive is doing any encryption at all.
But isn't the key feature that it dissipates this 1 watt x 10 seconds within a miniscule amount of time? It's similar to how a needle concentrates a force on a very small area, giving it great strength, or a hammer applies all the force built up over the swing into a very short time.
Hopefully we can culturally evolve to see the obvious fact that if we have machines doing most of the work, WE DON'T NEED TO WORK.
Sure. I can say that nobody is authorized to access my computer except myself. Anyone doing so is therefore unauthorized. If you meant, can it be considered illegal? Yes again. The real question: will the government be held to the law? No, because the US government considers itself above the law, and since it enforces it, it won't be held to the law.
Why are you not outraged that it takes half a minute just to open the drawer?!? What the hell is wrong with these things taking more than a second to open the tray, and less than 5 to start playing the feature? I just don't get it.
Why is parent modded insightful? Is that the new name for "Funny"?
And, the driver can understand what the passenger is saying the first time. On a mobile, one has to devote more attention to deciphering the sounds as words.
Honesty in this regard would allow more competition from companies who really do offer unlimited usage, since their claims wouldn't be muddied by the lies from companies like Concast.
Good point! They need to add a provision for guaranteed income even if the work isn't generating any.
...oh, that's not runnin' Winders? Sorry to have bothered you.