You don't need RAID or backups for a build server scratch volume.
Although RAID1 might be called for, purely for read performance and availability reasons;
you simply shouldn't be backing up temporary copies of things created during a build process.
Everything on a build server aside from its configuration and scripts should be coming from
a code repository checkout.
Enabling access to it allows them to A) change or remove the "locked" timeout
Windows has totally impotent security tools; the so called "group policy management" is a complete farce.
There's no way to define a policy that says "After a maximum of X minutes idle, sensitive information must be taken off the screen, and a password must be required to resume";
And there are lots of examples like that where the so called "group policy" is not a "policy framework" at all,
but actually counterproductive.
There's no way to create a security policy in Windows that imposes that requirement and allows you to let the user to personally select any screen saver option they like that preserves that requirement, and offers the user the option to use even a more stringent requirement.
For example: the company policy might be "auto lock screen after 10 minutes", because people
giving presentations/slide shows on their computers, need at least that much time between slides....
Whereas other users want a 5 minute or 3 minute auto-lock, but are prevented from personalizing and picking the more secure option because of a "paranoid" corporate security policy that stops them from doing the more secure thing.
These sound like things best left for competent sysadmin to automate, not to individual users.
Once they get that latest node.js, they also need to be able to know that nobody else "changed it for them", for whatever reason.
I'm not sure why we're fixated on the concept of developers breaking their machine.
IT breaks things too. IT does things like updating software based on their own volition, e.g. windows updates, Antivirus updates, and the IT updates sometimes have unintended side-effects that impact development and result in much wasted time for developers.
It's actually understandable for a developer to wish to not have antivirus and management software.
It's true those products are a gratuitous waste of system resources, sometimes there might be software or scripts installed that changes system boot/login times which should be a 60 second matter, into 10 or 15 minutes to boot the computer.
And there are massive disk IOPS and system RAM wastage
However, the so-called IT magic.... the "management actions" updating software, antivirus patterns with false positive, etc, can break things for developers too.
They lead to an unreliable, inconsistent environment that the developer can't count on.
And IT will never really fess up to breaking the developer's environment, or having an unstable environment.
It's always the user's fault
However, as I've seen in many places, your time costs money to the company, but it's not money from MY budget! Going "out of the way" for a single person or even just a few, is not "cost effective" to IT because it __increases__ IT's budget
The company needs chargeback for the services IT provides, otherwise the concept of an "IT budget" is a complete farce, since the IT services are basically a common utility (like Electricity) required by each department. Specifically, when IT provides extra support for a certain money-making department,
or sets up some big servers for some money-making department, that department
requiring the additional services, technician time, datacenter computing power, SAN space, etc, should be paying IT accordingly, so that IT's not going to be underfunded.
Meanwhile, once your IT is in the cloud, what are you going to do when your internet connection goes dead?
If you are serious about business continuity, you are multi-homed, your cloud traffic goes through your other connection. Your cloud provider going down is a bigger concern; have a backup plan, probably data backups through a service NOT stored by the same cloud provider..
Or maybe... make your "IT cloud provider" be your ISP, and make sure you have a good SLA.
Now depending on the situation, it may still be a good idea to give developers some more leeway, but only because they need it. It can be a necessary evil, but be sure to have an "software developer" image ready, because they *will* trash their computers and expect you to fix it immediately.
With great power comes great responsibility. Before allowing the developer elevated access, provide them the image recovery instructions, and no access gets granted until both the developer, and the developer's boss sign off on the additional IT management and security costs being charged against the development department's IT budget;
since more support issues are anticipated for this user, and additional security monitoring and spot checks will be required, to ensure the elevated access has not lead to compromise, or been abused to violate company policies, such as choice of web browser, unapproved software, improperly licensed applications or personal license on a company computer, etc, etc.
The King isn't responsible for the law or how it is used/abused by the government. He is a constitutional monarch and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.
In Britain, no new law actually has any legal effect, until the Queen gives her assent to the act. And i'm sure the Thai King could have influence on the MPs about a law protecting the king's office.
But if the King of Thailand has no official functions or power, then it may be sensible to provide the office of the Monarch that protection, to preserve a certain element of their culture.
It would be extremely apt, for their democratic government to rewrite the law to apply to negative statements about anyone though; similar to the Libel laws of Britain and other countries, but with a criminal penalty, and without a requirement for the conflicting parties to settle the matter with a duel.
Publish reckless, malicious, or intentionally deceptive false assertions about anyone with a clear intent to cause harm, go to jail.
It would be much more just than what other countries do, simply provide monetary relief, as if lost business were the only serious harm. If they would just drop the whole "against the monarchy" part from their law and refactor appropriately....
If the anti-body to bacteria battle could produce a super-germ we would have seen one by now.
Not necessarily. There is a certain probability of it happening. If the probability is small enough, it may take long enough before it happens on average, that as a result, it's not happened yet.
The bacteria/virus VS immune system battles have produced seriously powerful germs
that defeat the immune system
Examples: Anthrax... the immune system is so impotent against it, that some countries have
devised versions of it for use as a bio-weapon.
Examples: HIV, turns the immune system against itself....
The saving grace is although HIV is quite virulent, its limited infection vectors have damped the spread of the disease. If a virulent HIV strand were to mutate and add a bit of common cold DNA so it could spread more like TB, to gain the ability to spread over-the-air person to person, or as an arbovirus, borne by mosquitos, that could be a superbug.
So far the "super bugs" that have been seen either don't spread far because they kill so quickly they don't spread (Ebola), or they kill slowly but have limited infection vectors compared to highly-communicable disease so don't really spread widely enough to be a threat to human race's survival, HIV; however, matters can change.
There's really not a question if "Do these mutations arise," almost certainly they will eventually, unless 100% of virus can be eradicated. The question is a statistical one.... how likely will they arise in a certain amount of time, how many years or decades of intervening time can we expect before the superbug apocalypse?
Only a very few organisms can elude the immune system, and they do so by expressing a similar behavior - having a library of proteins they can rapidly shuffle.
Normally the existence of one known organism that can do it is enough to raise the concern.... that this is the organism that could one day mutate into the superbug
To "get into" photography, a point in shoot is clearly superior for its portability.
I would suggest something such as Fujifilm FinePix F550EXR.
And just getting started, you should shoot in sunlight.
As for low light situations; those are not really situations for people getting started
to take pictures with entry level equipment. To take pictures in low light when you cannot bring your own lighting, without a tripod, you really need a decently fast shutter speed when a flash is not suitable to the situation, you need ISO 3200, 6400, or higher, which means you require the more expensive, larger CMOS/CCD sensor arrays that are found on high-end cameras, to achieve proper exposure at a shutter speed that will enable mortals to take the picture without blur from shaky hands.
With the compact cameras or inexpensive SLRs, if the high ISO rates are offered, there will be much noise in the image; they just aren't right for low-light. Shoot in daylight, use a flash, use artificial light, or stick with shooting inanimate objects using a tripod for the camera.
A $2000+ Camera setup is really not a reasonable proposition for someone "getting into" photography.
By this logic, we should be expecting bullet-proof cattle and thresher-proof wheat any day now, not to mention hook-resistant fish and armored potatoes...
No... humans pick these things. Also, the turnover rate for breeding new cattle and wheat is astronomically longer than the turnover rate for bacteria. The simpler the organism, the faster the turnover rate, the faster it evolves.
What happens here is antiviral, antibiotic, or vaccination doesn't kill off 100% of the virus. Some cells tend to survive.
If some of the cells are resistant to the 'cure', then the survivors tend to be those particular cells that live to continue manufacturing virions that are less susceptible to the vaccine.
You may not have a vaccine-resistant virus today, but vaccination creates selective pressures that tend to make ones that are vaccine-resistant survive and reproduce more.... resulting that in the future newer viruses that occur are more likely to resemble the more vaccine-resistant ones, and eventually, as the trend repeats with enough iterations, the resistance becomes stronger and stronger......
As for "bullet resistant cows" that can't happen, really, because farmers make sure to slaughter 100% of the cows they try to kill. If a bullet to the head or wherever they typically shoot, fails to kill it, they will use another bullet, etc.
In order to evolve that trait, there has to be enough diversity in the population that there are already some cows that are bullet-proof, or some percentage of the population subjected to the bullet has to survive....
Consumers can opt out by turning off their phones."
This is like a spammer telling you that you can opt-out of junk mail only by closing your e-mail account.
A telemarketer telling you that you can opt-out of unwanted calls only by changing your phone number.
A credit card company telling you that you can "opt out" of credit card offers only by
waiting until a bill with them is 60 days overdue before paying it.
A social network website informing you that you can only opt-out of tracking by refraining from using other websites while
logged in to your account.
A magazine informing you that the only way you can opt-out of automatic renewal is
to cancel your subscription before it renews (but you don't receive the issues in between
the cancel date and the expiration date, and no refunds).
A monthly book club informing you that the only way you can opt-out of ongoing membership after
ending service is to cancel the bank account whose routing/account number was used to signup for the service.
etc... etc.... none of these "opt-out" are true opt-out.
True opt-out, means the consumer can WITHDRAW THEIR PERMISSION to perform the unwanted
activity, and it will stop WITHOUT INCONVENIENCE to the consumer, such as having to refrain from using a tool they would normally use, or refrain from partaking in basic services such as phone service.
As for the ability to receive cell phone signals and use that to track people...
I question if it's even legal.
The mall doesn't have FCC licenses to operate a receiver on the license restricted private radio frequencies used by
cell phones, DO they??
Last I checked, it was illegal to eavesdrop on a cell phone signal as a third party.
"receiving the signal" to detect its presence is no different from
receiving a signal to eavesdrop on the contents of the message -- both are wiretapping either way..
I suppose we should see the mall management jailed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law........
A much better way: Every voter picks their party. Each party gets representation based on the number of voters registered. Party holds an internal election to choose their own representatives, guaranteeing each voter is represented by somebody of their own party assuming their party has enough voters to qualify for a representative.
This isn't better... this substitutes voters picking a leader based on the merits of the person for the office and the candidates' political views and how they will represent the public for the views of a faceless party, and eliminates candidates campaigning for office or showing their merits to voters....
Then when elected, they aren't accountable to the voters, because the voters don't hire/fire them.
They happen to be in faceless party X, so they become the representative...
In other words it takes away voters' ability to vote their representatives, and in that respect, is an undemocratic proposition.
in most states one is required to yield to pedestrians, blind or not.
You can only yield if the Pedestrian is awaiting at the cross walk or on the street as you approach from a distance.
If you have a green light, you don't slow down in anticipation, just because there is a crossing point.
If a pedestrian runs up to the cross walk on a 45MPH highway, they don't get cars yielding
who are already too close to the crosspoint to stop.
Only cars that actually see the pedestrian in time can yield.
It's quite possible a pedestrian could come running down the sidewalk and run out into the street.
If they didn't check the street was clear, they could be killed, and the pedestrian would be at fault.
So a blind pedestrian is really in bad shape.... if they go up and cross into the road at an uncontrolled crossing, they may be hit by a car travelling the speed limit who is too close to yield.
If the blind pedestrian stands and waits at the crossing point too long so the vehicles can see them,
an approaching car may be confused by the pedestrian waiting, and believe that the pedestrian is waiting for the car to cross. The misinterpreted waiting could lead to an accident as well.
So basically... the result is there's no safe way for the blind pedestrian to cross at the uncontrolled intersection.
After all we know how ppl using txt spel pfectly an don abbrev any wrds.
I'm sure they anticipated that... that's why the 1600 word/phase list is probably 1600 variants of the phrase
"F**** the PTA" or "The Pakistan Telecom authority sucks"
In a gerrymandered system, the incumbent parties can ensure that the minority view is spread out over every district, diluting it to insignificance.
In a gerrymandered system, incumbent parties can ensure that the majority view is spread out over every district, diluting it into a minority.
Minority opinions are not supposed to be what get representatives elected.
An optimal election looks like this: If a state has 5 seats, you get a pool of candidates, say 60 people who want to be a representative.
You have 6 elections.
First a qualifying election, where voters are asked to vote "Yes" or "No" for each candidate in the pool;
for their ballot to be counted, at least 5 Yes votes must be registered, and the rest must be No, but they can vote Yes to as many candidates as they like.
Candidates that get less than 51% are disqualified and removed from the pool.
Then, you have another election to decide the first seat; voters are asked to choose their favorite candidate.
Whoever has the plurality wins the second election, and becomes the first representative.
Next, another election is held to decide the second seat. Voters have the knowledge of which candidate already has a seat, and this may influence their decision about who to vote for -- for example, many voters might want to make sure they don't have representation too lopsided towards one political persuasion or the other - they might not to give any single political party too much power.
Whoever gets plurality on Election #2 fills seat # 2, of course the winner of Seat 1 is no longer a candidate, so the vote is divided over a smaller number of candidates, and the voter options are reduced by 1 for the 2nd election.
Then a third election is called to fill seat #3, etc,.
The number of elections required is larger, but the result is a more accurate representation of the public view.
The strong winner is chosen quickly, and the losers get a better understanding of what the public wants to better tune their plans and their campaign in between elections, resulting in far better representation for the constituents.
If the system that actually stores the crypto key is designed to resist tampering, there are a reasonable number of initial attempts at forensics that might trip tamper detection and cause the key to be wiped, irrevocably.
This is a potential approach... utilize hardware based crypto with tamper-resistant hardware modules.
When someone tries to coerce you to get the key, you hand over the hardware module, which contains authentication credentials that can be used to obtain the key when the right PIN number is entered.
However, the actual key is stored solely in the cloud, a remote cloud server that the HSM will connect to in order to decode the key, and the HSM/hardware security module has the key to decrypt a response from the cloud server to access the true key.
The tamper-resistant crypto hardware security module contains a GPS for verifying location a fingerprint and retina scanner for verifying authentication, in addition to the PIN code.
In other words.... you can even give out the PIN code, if the unit is in the wrong place, or the operator does not have the proper biometrics, authentication will fail, and the HSM will contact the cloud server as if it was about to obtain the key, but instead instruct the cloud server to purge the key from RAM, and the HSM will then self-destruct.
If you don't check in by authenticating at least once every X days, the cloud-based authentication server shuts down the HSM's access to the keys by purging the encrypted version of the keys from RAM, and you have a number of "trusted third parties" who have the sole ability to re-instate the cloud service required for the HSM to authenticate, but only when they cooperate with you, and they have special instructions only to cooperate if authorized by a legal representative.
same as how it is already settled case law that you cannot be compelled to hand over the combination to a safe.
However, authorities can get a warrant to search your safe, and if you refuse to hand over the combination, they can drill the lock.
Authorities have ways of figuring out your encryption keys besides forcing you to divulage them, as well.
Techniques such as capturing your keys or access methods through surveillance; cold boot attacks, where the RAM is quickly cooled, ejected from your computer, and then analyzed using dedicated hardware, to extract keys or plaintext from your RAM for key cracking.
Slashdot Mirror
really? How does that work for all my machines, everywhere in the world? All my mobile devices?
You're not allowed to just store company files on all your computers! That's what we in IT security would call an information leak.
You don't need RAID or backups for a build server scratch volume. Although RAID1 might be called for, purely for read performance and availability reasons; you simply shouldn't be backing up temporary copies of things created during a build process.
Everything on a build server aside from its configuration and scripts should be coming from a code repository checkout.
Enabling access to it allows them to A) change or remove the "locked" timeout
Windows has totally impotent security tools; the so called "group policy management" is a complete farce.
There's no way to define a policy that says "After a maximum of X minutes idle, sensitive information must be taken off the screen, and a password must be required to resume"; And there are lots of examples like that where the so called "group policy" is not a "policy framework" at all, but actually counterproductive.
There's no way to create a security policy in Windows that imposes that requirement and allows you to let the user to personally select any screen saver option they like that preserves that requirement, and offers the user the option to use even a more stringent requirement.
For example: the company policy might be "auto lock screen after 10 minutes", because people giving presentations/slide shows on their computers, need at least that much time between slides.... Whereas other users want a 5 minute or 3 minute auto-lock, but are prevented from personalizing and picking the more secure option because of a "paranoid" corporate security policy that stops them from doing the more secure thing.
These sound like things best left for competent sysadmin to automate, not to individual users.
Once they get that latest node.js, they also need to be able to know that nobody else "changed it for them", for whatever reason.
I'm not sure why we're fixated on the concept of developers breaking their machine. IT breaks things too. IT does things like updating software based on their own volition, e.g. windows updates, Antivirus updates, and the IT updates sometimes have unintended side-effects that impact development and result in much wasted time for developers.
It's actually understandable for a developer to wish to not have antivirus and management software.
It's true those products are a gratuitous waste of system resources, sometimes there might be software or scripts installed that changes system boot/login times which should be a 60 second matter, into 10 or 15 minutes to boot the computer.
And there are massive disk IOPS and system RAM wastage
However, the so-called IT magic.... the "management actions" updating software, antivirus patterns with false positive, etc, can break things for developers too.
They lead to an unreliable, inconsistent environment that the developer can't count on.
And IT will never really fess up to breaking the developer's environment, or having an unstable environment. It's always the user's fault
However, as I've seen in many places, your time costs money to the company, but it's not money from MY budget! Going "out of the way" for a single person or even just a few, is not "cost effective" to IT because it __increases__ IT's budget
The company needs chargeback for the services IT provides, otherwise the concept of an "IT budget" is a complete farce, since the IT services are basically a common utility (like Electricity) required by each department. Specifically, when IT provides extra support for a certain money-making department, or sets up some big servers for some money-making department, that department requiring the additional services, technician time, datacenter computing power, SAN space, etc, should be paying IT accordingly, so that IT's not going to be underfunded.
Meanwhile, once your IT is in the cloud, what are you going to do when your internet connection goes dead?
If you are serious about business continuity, you are multi-homed, your cloud traffic goes through your other connection. Your cloud provider going down is a bigger concern; have a backup plan, probably data backups through a service NOT stored by the same cloud provider..
Or maybe... make your "IT cloud provider" be your ISP, and make sure you have a good SLA.
Now depending on the situation, it may still be a good idea to give developers some more leeway, but only because they need it. It can be a necessary evil, but be sure to have an "software developer" image ready, because they *will* trash their computers and expect you to fix it immediately.
With great power comes great responsibility. Before allowing the developer elevated access, provide them the image recovery instructions, and no access gets granted until both the developer, and the developer's boss sign off on the additional IT management and security costs being charged against the development department's IT budget; since more support issues are anticipated for this user, and additional security monitoring and spot checks will be required, to ensure the elevated access has not lead to compromise, or been abused to violate company policies, such as choice of web browser, unapproved software, improperly licensed applications or personal license on a company computer, etc, etc.
The King isn't responsible for the law or how it is used/abused by the government. He is a constitutional monarch and has no more control over the laws of Thailand than Queen Elizabeth has over the laws of Britain.
In Britain, no new law actually has any legal effect, until the Queen gives her assent to the act. And i'm sure the Thai King could have influence on the MPs about a law protecting the king's office.
But if the King of Thailand has no official functions or power, then it may be sensible to provide the office of the Monarch that protection, to preserve a certain element of their culture.
It would be extremely apt, for their democratic government to rewrite the law to apply to negative statements about anyone though; similar to the Libel laws of Britain and other countries, but with a criminal penalty, and without a requirement for the conflicting parties to settle the matter with a duel.
Publish reckless, malicious, or intentionally deceptive false assertions about anyone with a clear intent to cause harm, go to jail.
It would be much more just than what other countries do, simply provide monetary relief, as if lost business were the only serious harm. If they would just drop the whole "against the monarchy" part from their law and refactor appropriately....
will it offer any benefit over just using GNOME 2?
GNOME 3's other improvements, performance, desktop search, themes, enhanced user interface layout engine ?
GNOME 3 is not just GNOME 2 with a few panels removed and window switching changed around.
If the anti-body to bacteria battle could produce a super-germ we would have seen one by now.
Not necessarily. There is a certain probability of it happening. If the probability is small enough, it may take long enough before it happens on average, that as a result, it's not happened yet.
The bacteria/virus VS immune system battles have produced seriously powerful germs that defeat the immune system
Examples: Anthrax... the immune system is so impotent against it, that some countries have devised versions of it for use as a bio-weapon.
Examples: HIV, turns the immune system against itself....
The saving grace is although HIV is quite virulent, its limited infection vectors have damped the spread of the disease. If a virulent HIV strand were to mutate and add a bit of common cold DNA so it could spread more like TB, to gain the ability to spread over-the-air person to person, or as an arbovirus, borne by mosquitos, that could be a superbug.
So far the "super bugs" that have been seen either don't spread far because they kill so quickly they don't spread (Ebola), or they kill slowly but have limited infection vectors compared to highly-communicable disease so don't really spread widely enough to be a threat to human race's survival, HIV; however, matters can change.
There's really not a question if "Do these mutations arise," almost certainly they will eventually, unless 100% of virus can be eradicated. The question is a statistical one.... how likely will they arise in a certain amount of time, how many years or decades of intervening time can we expect before the superbug apocalypse?
Only a very few organisms can elude the immune system, and they do so by expressing a similar behavior - having a library of proteins they can rapidly shuffle.
Normally the existence of one known organism that can do it is enough to raise the concern.... that this is the organism that could one day mutate into the superbug
To "get into" photography, a point in shoot is clearly superior for its portability. I would suggest something such as Fujifilm FinePix F550EXR. And just getting started, you should shoot in sunlight.
As for low light situations; those are not really situations for people getting started to take pictures with entry level equipment. To take pictures in low light when you cannot bring your own lighting, without a tripod, you really need a decently fast shutter speed when a flash is not suitable to the situation, you need ISO 3200, 6400, or higher, which means you require the more expensive, larger CMOS/CCD sensor arrays that are found on high-end cameras, to achieve proper exposure at a shutter speed that will enable mortals to take the picture without blur from shaky hands.
With the compact cameras or inexpensive SLRs, if the high ISO rates are offered, there will be much noise in the image; they just aren't right for low-light. Shoot in daylight, use a flash, use artificial light, or stick with shooting inanimate objects using a tripod for the camera. A $2000+ Camera setup is really not a reasonable proposition for someone "getting into" photography.
By this logic, we should be expecting bullet-proof cattle and thresher-proof wheat any day now, not to mention hook-resistant fish and armored potatoes...
No... humans pick these things. Also, the turnover rate for breeding new cattle and wheat is astronomically longer than the turnover rate for bacteria. The simpler the organism, the faster the turnover rate, the faster it evolves.
What happens here is antiviral, antibiotic, or vaccination doesn't kill off 100% of the virus. Some cells tend to survive. If some of the cells are resistant to the 'cure', then the survivors tend to be those particular cells that live to continue manufacturing virions that are less susceptible to the vaccine.
You may not have a vaccine-resistant virus today, but vaccination creates selective pressures that tend to make ones that are vaccine-resistant survive and reproduce more.... resulting that in the future newer viruses that occur are more likely to resemble the more vaccine-resistant ones, and eventually, as the trend repeats with enough iterations, the resistance becomes stronger and stronger......
As for "bullet resistant cows" that can't happen, really, because farmers make sure to slaughter 100% of the cows they try to kill. If a bullet to the head or wherever they typically shoot, fails to kill it, they will use another bullet, etc.
In order to evolve that trait, there has to be enough diversity in the population that there are already some cows that are bullet-proof, or some percentage of the population subjected to the bullet has to survive....
It's better than the Google opt-out
I'm just surprised Apple hasn't gotten into logo'd apparel yet.
The iPod is logo'd apparel that you wear in your pocket.
Consumers can opt out by turning off their phones."
This is like a spammer telling you that you can opt-out of junk mail only by closing your e-mail account.
A telemarketer telling you that you can opt-out of unwanted calls only by changing your phone number.
A credit card company telling you that you can "opt out" of credit card offers only by waiting until a bill with them is 60 days overdue before paying it.
A social network website informing you that you can only opt-out of tracking by refraining from using other websites while logged in to your account.
A magazine informing you that the only way you can opt-out of automatic renewal is to cancel your subscription before it renews (but you don't receive the issues in between the cancel date and the expiration date, and no refunds).
A monthly book club informing you that the only way you can opt-out of ongoing membership after ending service is to cancel the bank account whose routing/account number was used to signup for the service.
etc... etc.... none of these "opt-out" are true opt-out. True opt-out, means the consumer can WITHDRAW THEIR PERMISSION to perform the unwanted activity, and it will stop WITHOUT INCONVENIENCE to the consumer, such as having to refrain from using a tool they would normally use, or refrain from partaking in basic services such as phone service.
As for the ability to receive cell phone signals and use that to track people... I question if it's even legal. The mall doesn't have FCC licenses to operate a receiver on the license restricted private radio frequencies used by cell phones, DO they??
Last I checked, it was illegal to eavesdrop on a cell phone signal as a third party. "receiving the signal" to detect its presence is no different from receiving a signal to eavesdrop on the contents of the message -- both are wiretapping either way.. I suppose we should see the mall management jailed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law........
A much better way: Every voter picks their party. Each party gets representation based on the number of voters registered. Party holds an internal election to choose their own representatives, guaranteeing each voter is represented by somebody of their own party assuming their party has enough voters to qualify for a representative.
This isn't better... this substitutes voters picking a leader based on the merits of the person for the office and the candidates' political views and how they will represent the public for the views of a faceless party, and eliminates candidates campaigning for office or showing their merits to voters....
Then when elected, they aren't accountable to the voters, because the voters don't hire/fire them. They happen to be in faceless party X, so they become the representative...
In other words it takes away voters' ability to vote their representatives, and in that respect, is an undemocratic proposition.
On Linux you can blacklist the OHCI modules
How about Solaris, with a CPU supporting hardware IOMMU ? (meaning that a device driver cannot read or write memory not explicitly allocated to it)
in most states one is required to yield to pedestrians, blind or not.
You can only yield if the Pedestrian is awaiting at the cross walk or on the street as you approach from a distance.
If you have a green light, you don't slow down in anticipation, just because there is a crossing point. If a pedestrian runs up to the cross walk on a 45MPH highway, they don't get cars yielding who are already too close to the crosspoint to stop.
Only cars that actually see the pedestrian in time can yield. It's quite possible a pedestrian could come running down the sidewalk and run out into the street. If they didn't check the street was clear, they could be killed, and the pedestrian would be at fault.
So a blind pedestrian is really in bad shape.... if they go up and cross into the road at an uncontrolled crossing, they may be hit by a car travelling the speed limit who is too close to yield.
If the blind pedestrian stands and waits at the crossing point too long so the vehicles can see them, an approaching car may be confused by the pedestrian waiting, and believe that the pedestrian is waiting for the car to cross. The misinterpreted waiting could lead to an accident as well.
So basically... the result is there's no safe way for the blind pedestrian to cross at the uncontrolled intersection.
Should one be walking around with that kind of disability combo?
Yes, it's just fine, as long as they don't try to jump out into the highway at an uncontrolled intersection, to cross the street, without assistance.
Darwin might have a thing or two to say about a blind deaf person knowingly attempting to cross a street on their own in that way....
for(p=text,p2=buffer;*p;p++) { if (!isspace(*p)) *p2++ = LEETMAP(*p); }
for(i=0;i<1600;i++) {
result = pcre_exec(badpatterns[i].regex, 0, buffer, strlen(buffer), 0, 0, optvec, sizeof(optvec)/sizeof(optvec[0]));
if ( result >= 0) {
national_database[ subscriber_id ].strikes ++;
(* badpatterns[i].punitive_action) ( national_database[ subscriber_id ].strikes, &gps_position[ subscriber_id], buffer, DISPATCH_POLICE);
return MSG_BLOCKED;
}
}
After all we know how ppl using txt spel pfectly an don abbrev any wrds.
I'm sure they anticipated that... that's why the 1600 word/phase list is probably 1600 variants of the phrase "F**** the PTA" or "The Pakistan Telecom authority sucks"
In a gerrymandered system, the incumbent parties can ensure that the minority view is spread out over every district, diluting it to insignificance.
In a gerrymandered system, incumbent parties can ensure that the majority view is spread out over every district, diluting it into a minority.
Minority opinions are not supposed to be what get representatives elected.
An optimal election looks like this: If a state has 5 seats, you get a pool of candidates, say 60 people who want to be a representative.
You have 6 elections. First a qualifying election, where voters are asked to vote "Yes" or "No" for each candidate in the pool; for their ballot to be counted, at least 5 Yes votes must be registered, and the rest must be No, but they can vote Yes to as many candidates as they like.
Candidates that get less than 51% are disqualified and removed from the pool.
Then, you have another election to decide the first seat; voters are asked to choose their favorite candidate. Whoever has the plurality wins the second election, and becomes the first representative.
Next, another election is held to decide the second seat. Voters have the knowledge of which candidate already has a seat, and this may influence their decision about who to vote for -- for example, many voters might want to make sure they don't have representation too lopsided towards one political persuasion or the other - they might not to give any single political party too much power.
Whoever gets plurality on Election #2 fills seat # 2, of course the winner of Seat 1 is no longer a candidate, so the vote is divided over a smaller number of candidates, and the voter options are reduced by 1 for the 2nd election.
Then a third election is called to fill seat #3, etc,.
The number of elections required is larger, but the result is a more accurate representation of the public view. The strong winner is chosen quickly, and the losers get a better understanding of what the public wants to better tune their plans and their campaign in between elections, resulting in far better representation for the constituents.
If the system that actually stores the crypto key is designed to resist tampering, there are a reasonable number of initial attempts at forensics that might trip tamper detection and cause the key to be wiped, irrevocably.
This is a potential approach... utilize hardware based crypto with tamper-resistant hardware modules.
When someone tries to coerce you to get the key, you hand over the hardware module, which contains authentication credentials that can be used to obtain the key when the right PIN number is entered.
However, the actual key is stored solely in the cloud, a remote cloud server that the HSM will connect to in order to decode the key, and the HSM/hardware security module has the key to decrypt a response from the cloud server to access the true key.
The tamper-resistant crypto hardware security module contains a GPS for verifying location a fingerprint and retina scanner for verifying authentication, in addition to the PIN code. In other words.... you can even give out the PIN code, if the unit is in the wrong place, or the operator does not have the proper biometrics, authentication will fail, and the HSM will contact the cloud server as if it was about to obtain the key, but instead instruct the cloud server to purge the key from RAM, and the HSM will then self-destruct.
If you don't check in by authenticating at least once every X days, the cloud-based authentication server shuts down the HSM's access to the keys by purging the encrypted version of the keys from RAM, and you have a number of "trusted third parties" who have the sole ability to re-instate the cloud service required for the HSM to authenticate, but only when they cooperate with you, and they have special instructions only to cooperate if authorized by a legal representative.
same as how it is already settled case law that you cannot be compelled to hand over the combination to a safe.
However, authorities can get a warrant to search your safe, and if you refuse to hand over the combination, they can drill the lock.
Authorities have ways of figuring out your encryption keys besides forcing you to divulage them, as well.
Techniques such as capturing your keys or access methods through surveillance; cold boot attacks, where the RAM is quickly cooled, ejected from your computer, and then analyzed using dedicated hardware, to extract keys or plaintext from your RAM for key cracking.