You don't have to be stupid to screw up in C, that's the problem. The only way to be safe is to write your own string handling functions and ban all others, in which case you've changed the language: you've made it so fascist that it's not-C.
This case seems to be more than the usual, because the neighbor complained. As always the press article is near useless, but that suggests the arrestee went beyond simply using unused bandwidth.
Every time one of these stories comes up, some people post with great certainty their opinion that using someone else's wireless connection is clearly unethical. Folks, please make your case more solid by answering the question of how you're supposed to tell a wide-open residential AP from a public access AP. For that matter, how do you tell whether the neighbor was clueless in the setup or was being neighborly? The knock-on-the-door-and-ask-politely algorithm doesn't work well in an apartment block where the range of the signal includes dozens of apartments.
If I think there's a real threat, as opposed to just an opportunity to get into the newspapers, I follow her around and find out who her contacts are so that I can roll up the whole gang.
If she's a real terrorist, then the police have tipped off everyone in her cell, who will now vanish until they kill someone.
>The first charge alleges that she possessed information on her computer hard drive likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism... Possession of items such as these is an offence under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Which is more likely to be useful to a terrorist: a field manual for a pistol, or an airline flight schedule?
>Not to be flippant, but even the summary points out that she was arrested in connection with a bomb plot
There is no mention of a bomb plot in the Reuters article. The closest thing to an actual explanation was the single sentence near the end, "Police sources said at the time their investigation covered possible terrorist acts outside the country". The only mention of bombs was the backgrounder "Britain has been on a high state of alert since August when police said they had disrupted a plot to blow up several U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic using liquid explosives."
an arrest requires "probable cause" that a statute has been violated.
I don't know UK law, but as a matter of opinion none of the facts mentioned in the article justifies yanking someone out of their daily life and putting them in jail.
This sort of incident is what motivates privacy advocates. Their reasoning is that the more government knows about you, the more they will misinterpret. Someone in Franco's Spain asked a partially non-evil secret policeman how to avoid getting in trouble. The answer wasn't "do nothing wrong", the answer was "be invisible".
Their key security property is uniqueness, not secrecy.
A password (in theory) identifies you because you're the only one who knows it. That identification property can be lost in a heartbeat to a phishing scam.
Biometrics need a different set of precautions. Recording and replaying the biometric information isn't an issue if there's a trustworthy path from the sensor to the database and a security guard who will challenge anybody who holds a severed finger up to the reader.
You've been using biometrics for identification your entire life. You recognize family and coworkers by facial geometry in person and by voice over the phone. There's no need to "revoke" a face if someone takes a photograph of it.
Grad students are cheap but the most effective choice would have been IT operations people, with the experience to yell immediately if someone with a clipboard and a vendor nametag shows up to install a patch.
CS grad students would be a great choice for auditing the design and the source code. But that's not what happens on Election Day.
>in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
The guy in question is the manager of the bar. He didn't hire someone to play harmonica for his customers, he does it himself. At least that's my interpretation of "He allegedly performed the songs on the harmonica with a female pianist at the bar he operated" and "A 73-year-old bar manager ".
(pet peeve)>copywritten material Copyright. Copy + right. Exclusive legal privilege ("right") to make copies ("copy"). "Copywrite" is a real word but it means to create text for advertising.(/pet peeve)
Lots of good information there! Thank you for the post and even more for taking your time to be a poll watcher.
>Maybe my fellow slashdotters could enlighten me as to the number of read/write cycles before they go bad.
Gradually improving and highly variable. The vendor claims have gone from on the order of 100,000 cycles to closer to a million cycles. So they should be able to handle one vote per second for 24 hours, enough to last through enough elections that the machinery will all get replaced due to obsolence. Your observation about bent pins is probably more important. What happens to the cards when they break? Are all the votes lost? Will older or unreliable cards wind up in opposition precincts somehow?
You're not alone in a booth when you get your absentee ballot. This leaves the door open to "voter education" events by unions/businesses/evangelical churches/liberal churches that "help" people fill out the complicated ballots and add peer pressure or threats. Then there's domestic violence, you wouldn't believe what control freaks some of the batterers are.
Locating and linking to the primary sources can only help. For secondary sources, it would be good to be more selective, preferring places like Science News.
It's a tradeoff between efficiency and reliability. The most economical way to make use of all that expensive equipment is to run it near capacity. But leaving a margin of safety allows for fault tolerance.
I've wondered why the utilities don't respond to overload by doing controlled load shedding. There are several possible reasons..
>I'd say it's a pretty lame attack to point out the cost as a negative. Just admit that you're not interested in his opinion and move on.
I can see two reasons why that would be a valid point. One is that since the DHS commissioned the report, we've already paid for it. The other is that as near as we can tell from the excerpts this report isn't a collection of top-notch observations.
I only charge for customized advice that translates into specific actions for a client. Generic statements might as well be free.
>Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about >Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
>Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any >specific piece of intelligence.
The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, power to set regulations for the armed forces. The President can command them in battle because you can't command by committtee but he does not get to make the rules.
>Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
The Founders made it crystal clear that letting the same person command armies *and* start wars was too dangerous to contemplate. They specifically said they wanted to avoid creating an executive like the British King. The President can deploy troops under a Congressional declaration of war, to meet an emergency like rebellion or invasion until Congress can declare way, and that is it.
>would wager less than 1 in 100 citizens in the U.S. even know about these letters.
I can't remember enough to give you a citation or a link, but I read comments from one lawyer who said that almost all his colleagues hadn't heard of them.
With voter turnout ranging from 30-50%, you can decide an election by turning non-voters into voters. The quickest, sleaziest way to do that is to appeal to prejudice and enrage people. Same-sex marriage is a useful issue for doing just that. I don't believe for an instant that the party actually cares.
Treating voters like they have below-average intelligence is also a winning tactic. Half the people do have below-average intelligence, and they're the ones who are easy to persuade because they believe what they see on TV.
We need a healthy right wing. I hope the Republican Party takes this opportunity to take a scalpel to the gangrenous corruption and cancerous growth of Executive power.
Slashdot Mirror
One obvious way to game this system is to push out the low-performing students, thus raising the averages. Then, just as in the "Texas miracle", you cook the books and falsify the dropout rate.
So you're one of those people who's tired of voting for the *lesser* of two evils?
'cause heap overflows are harder to exploit?
Are they even the biggest remote security problem these days, with cross-site scripting and SQL injection running rampant?
You don't have to be stupid to screw up in C, that's the problem. The only way to be safe is to write your own string handling functions and ban all others, in which case you've changed the language: you've made it so fascist that it's not-C.
This case seems to be more than the usual, because the neighbor complained. As always the press article is near useless, but that suggests the arrestee went beyond simply using unused bandwidth.
Every time one of these stories comes up, some people post with great certainty their opinion that using someone else's wireless connection is clearly unethical. Folks, please make your case more solid by answering the question of how you're supposed to tell a wide-open residential AP from a public access AP. For that matter, how do you tell whether the neighbor was clueless in the setup or was being neighborly? The knock-on-the-door-and-ask-politely algorithm doesn't work well in an apartment block where the range of the signal includes dozens of apartments.
>what would you do if you were that cop?
If I think there's a real threat, as opposed to just an opportunity to get into the newspapers, I follow her around and find out who her contacts are so that I can roll up the whole gang.
If she's a real terrorist, then the police have tipped off everyone in her cell, who will now vanish until they kill someone.
>The first charge alleges that she possessed information on her computer hard drive likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism... Possession of items such as these is an offence under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Which is more likely to be useful to a terrorist: a field manual for a pistol, or an airline flight schedule?
>Not to be flippant, but even the summary points out that she was arrested in connection with a bomb plot
There is no mention of a bomb plot in the Reuters article. The closest thing to an actual explanation was the single sentence near the end, "Police sources said at the time their investigation covered possible terrorist acts outside the country". The only mention of bombs was the backgrounder "Britain has been on a high state of alert since August when police said they had disrupted a plot to blow up several U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic using liquid explosives."
an arrest requires "probable cause" that a statute has been violated.
I don't know UK law, but as a matter of opinion none of the facts mentioned in the article justifies yanking someone out of their daily life and putting them in jail.
This sort of incident is what motivates privacy advocates. Their reasoning is that the more government knows about you, the more they will misinterpret. Someone in Franco's Spain asked a partially non-evil secret policeman how to avoid getting in trouble. The answer wasn't "do nothing wrong", the answer was "be invisible".
Their key security property is uniqueness, not secrecy.
A password (in theory) identifies you because you're the only one who knows it. That identification property can be lost in a heartbeat to a phishing scam.
Biometrics need a different set of precautions. Recording and replaying the biometric information isn't an issue if there's a trustworthy path from the sensor to the database and a security guard who will challenge anybody who holds a severed finger up to the reader.
You've been using biometrics for identification your entire life. You recognize family and coworkers by facial geometry in person and by voice over the phone. There's no need to "revoke" a face if someone takes a photograph of it.
So is the situation better in densely packed cities like New York? Or is the problem that the incumbent carriers are dogs in the manger?
Grad students are cheap but the most effective choice would have been IT operations people, with the experience to yell immediately if someone with a clipboard and a vendor nametag shows up to install a patch.
CS grad students would be a great choice for auditing the design and the source code. But that's not what happens on Election Day.
Credit for good intentions, though.
>in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
The guy in question is the manager of the bar. He didn't hire someone to play harmonica for his customers, he does it himself. At least that's my interpretation of "He allegedly performed the songs on the harmonica with a female pianist at the bar he operated" and "A 73-year-old bar manager ".
(pet peeve)>copywritten material
Copyright. Copy + right. Exclusive legal privilege ("right") to make copies ("copy"). "Copywrite" is a real word but it means to create text for advertising.(/pet peeve)
Lots of good information there! Thank you for the post and even more for taking your time to be a poll watcher.
>Maybe my fellow slashdotters could enlighten me as to the number of read/write cycles before they go bad.
Gradually improving and highly variable. The vendor claims have gone from on the order of 100,000 cycles to closer to a million cycles. So they should be able to handle one vote per second for 24 hours, enough to last through enough elections that the machinery will all get replaced due to obsolence. Your observation about bent pins is probably more important. What happens to the cards when they break? Are all the votes lost? Will older or unreliable cards wind up in opposition precincts somehow?
You're not alone in a booth when you get your absentee ballot. This leaves the door open to "voter education" events by unions/businesses/evangelical churches/liberal churches that "help" people fill out the complicated ballots and add peer pressure or threats. Then there's domestic violence, you wouldn't believe what control freaks some of the batterers are.
ATM reprogrammed as media player
ATMs catch Welchia
Locating and linking to the primary sources can only help. For secondary sources, it would be good to be more selective, preferring places like Science News.
It's a tradeoff between efficiency and reliability. The most economical way to make use of all that expensive equipment is to run it near capacity. But leaving a margin of safety allows for fault tolerance.
I've wondered why the utilities don't respond to overload by doing controlled load shedding. There are several possible reasons..
>I'd say it's a pretty lame attack to point out the cost as a negative. Just admit that you're not interested in his opinion and move on.
I can see two reasons why that would be a valid point. One is that since the DHS commissioned the report, we've already paid for it. The other is that as near as we can tell from the excerpts this report isn't a collection of top-notch observations.
I only charge for customized advice that translates into specific actions for a client. Generic statements might as well be free.
>Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about >Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
>Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any >specific piece of intelligence.
The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, power to set regulations for the armed forces. The President can command them in battle because you can't command by committtee but he does not get to make the rules.
>Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
The Founders made it crystal clear that letting the same person command armies *and* start wars was too dangerous to contemplate. They specifically said they wanted to avoid creating an executive like the British King. The President can deploy troops under a Congressional declaration of war, to meet an emergency like rebellion or invasion until Congress can declare way, and that is it.
>would wager less than 1 in 100 citizens in the U.S. even know about these letters.
I can't remember enough to give you a citation or a link, but I read comments from one lawyer who said that almost all his colleagues hadn't heard of them.
With voter turnout ranging from 30-50%, you can decide an election by turning non-voters into voters. The quickest, sleaziest way to do that is to appeal to prejudice and enrage people. Same-sex marriage is a useful issue for doing just that. I don't believe for an instant that the party actually cares.
Treating voters like they have below-average intelligence is also a winning tactic. Half the people do have below-average intelligence, and they're the ones who are easy to persuade because they believe what they see on TV.
>All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth.
And if you want to know where that leads, read Edgar Allan Poe.
We need a healthy right wing. I hope the Republican Party takes this opportunity to take a scalpel to the gangrenous corruption and cancerous growth of Executive power.
>clear right from the word go that it was going to end up in a guerrilla warfare situation
It was clear eleven years before. Bush pere's book explained that they didn't go on to Baghdad in Gulf War I for exactly that reason.
According to Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine", Bush fils _never consulted_ the one man you would most want to ask about invading Iraq.