I didn't say they should apologize, but the commenter I replied to thought that the SSID sniffing was the issue.
I don't really see the need to make a bunch of inaccurate analogies about the wireless communications involved, wireless access points that actively exchange packets with any hardware that is in range are clearly not intended to be private (there is room to argue about the intent behind openly transmitting data, but any legal argument about protecting the privacy of unencrypted communications is going to be quite a bit weaker than the encryption technology available to protect those communications) .
It's amazing how much misunderstanding this case engenders.
Google has been completely unapologetic for sniffing SSIDs. Some people are angry that they would so large scale data gathering, but they generally just think it is improper.
The real shit-fits are over the unencrypted wifi packets that Google wrote to disk while they were driving around sniffing SSIDs (Google did say "oops-sorry" about that activity).
I did engineering at one of the better state universities.
The liberal arts classes I was required to take usually had large lectures (with no attendance checks) and meaningful smaller discussions (these were usually taught by graduate students). The 200-300 level classes generally didn't have large lectures.
Your comment is weird. Very few clocks actually use the AC phase to keep time, so the intersection of people doing things sensitive to seconds and people unable to buy a $5 quartz watch is pretty small.
Slashdot Mirror
The $140 million is less than 5% of the $3 billion.
And if they thought the value of the patents was $3.2 billion...
"to the extent we think it necessary for the Service"
They would have to go to court and argue they were stupid if they wanted to claim they needed to publicly share files you had marked as private.
(or publicly share files that had not been explicitly marked for sharing, I guess defaulting to private would be more sensible)
Are you an accountant for the MPAA?
You aren't denying them access to the encrypted blob.
And they could just refuse to store data that they can't make any sense of, so hopefully any such case would go no further than amusing the judge.
Wat?
They all provide features that allow users to share content with other users. Legal paranoia says they need a license to do that.
The planes interact with water that is present in the atmosphere. If there is not much water in the air a plane flies through, it won't cause rain.
He even typed it with his penis.
I didn't say they should apologize, but the commenter I replied to thought that the SSID sniffing was the issue.
I don't really see the need to make a bunch of inaccurate analogies about the wireless communications involved, wireless access points that actively exchange packets with any hardware that is in range are clearly not intended to be private (there is room to argue about the intent behind openly transmitting data, but any legal argument about protecting the privacy of unencrypted communications is going to be quite a bit weaker than the encryption technology available to protect those communications) .
It's amazing how much misunderstanding this case engenders.
Google has been completely unapologetic for sniffing SSIDs. Some people are angry that they would so large scale data gathering, but they generally just think it is improper.
The real shit-fits are over the unencrypted wifi packets that Google wrote to disk while they were driving around sniffing SSIDs (Google did say "oops-sorry" about that activity).
Congress can modify the constitution. So can the states, by calling for a constitutional convention and ratifying the amendments.
If you are going to put the punch line in the subject, why bother following it up with a couple hundred words?
See Q21:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
Gotta love the internets, where countering a misconception results in yelling for citations when the answer is a relatively simple search away:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ssn+not+to+be+used+for+identification
Perhaps you don't think of the period between 2011 and 1972 as decades?
New ones doesn't.
(and 'new' here means from the recent several decades)
How about just changing the system so that knowing a number doesn't give someone the ability to impersonate you?
The book is aimed at people that don't.
Abandon all hope, ye who are alive.
Or he just exercised and held.
But that isn't really the company's fault.
Right, get a lawyer or don't sign the mortgage contract you don't understand.
Both of those things prevent signing a document that is not well understood.
Only the Federal government.
I did engineering at one of the better state universities.
The liberal arts classes I was required to take usually had large lectures (with no attendance checks) and meaningful smaller discussions (these were usually taught by graduate students). The 200-300 level classes generally didn't have large lectures.
Right. Assertion.
So you are simply asserting that the claimed cost savings and reliability increases are imaginary? Because you say so?
I guess if you want to talk about what is possible rather that what is possible inside of 5 years you can say lots of things.
Your comment is weird. Very few clocks actually use the AC phase to keep time, so the intersection of people doing things sensitive to seconds and people unable to buy a $5 quartz watch is pretty small.
Nicer link:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1028/ML102800342.pdf
The NRC uses that notation:
http://wba.nrc.gov:8080//ves/download.jsp?actionId=view&docId=%7B%22docId%22%3A%22102800284%22%2C%22repoId%22%3A%22pu_adams%22%7D&tabId=advanced-search&docTitle=EA-10-084+-+Final+Significance+Determination+for+a+Yellow+Finding+and+Notice+of+Violation%2C+NRC+Inspection+Report+05000285-10-007%2C+Fort+Calhoun+Station.&action=view&viewText=undefined&isTbar=false