"...sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever." ~Ingrid NewKirk. She's right, I know one animal I'd like to see put to sleep.
Agreed. I'd also add: You don't need every drop to be the fastest that money can buy, just fast enough for the purpose. If the goal is to be able to max out the fiber from any single location in the house then you'll end up spending a lot of time and money; if you want each device to have at least as much bandwidth as required, but don't need to go beyond that, then you can use a mix of ethernet and wifi 802.11ac (or even 802.11n depending on needs).
I've got to finish paying off my phone, I had switched to AT&T Next so once that contract is up I'm probably going pre-paid. I use Google Voice for my main number anyway, so I can bounce between carriers once I get my phone *crossed fingers* unlocked.
It's not "passing exposure" if you're near the person when they are coughing or vomiting. Both acts result in aerosolized bodily fluids, which are effective at transmitting the disease; you can't get Ebola through skin unless it's broken, but inhaling it or getting particulates into your mucus membranes will have a high likelihood of infecting you.
Communicability. Avian flu doesn't readily spread between humans, and the incubation time is much shorter than that of Ebola; Ebola can be spread to far more people before it becomes apparent that they are even sick.
Agreed. Many countries already do similar things for various types of livestock. The only difference here is that if some people die it isn't cutting into profits.
My bill showed my data and voice plans each as $20 more than the agreed-upon (in writing) rates selected back in January of this year. I had to argue on the phone for about half an hour, but they finally agreed to refund the money. I had to stay on the line while the CS rep filed a separate refund form for not only each month this happened, but for each of the charges. Since it was 9 months of wrongful billing it took an hour for her to refund me the 18 charges -- $360. In less than a year. I've been telling everyone I know who uses AT&T to double-check their bills because of this. Something similar happened to me with an insurance company which over-billed me by $600; by the time I got the money back it was $850 including the interest.
That's not accurate. A.jar file is run within the system's JVM (for security you shouldn't even install that junk), so it's sandboxed. Yes, you can do self-contained apps in Windows, but it requires the program's author to at least have allowed for it to be possible; you can't take any arbitrary program and just move it to a new computer and have it work. Any app that's been converted for use from a USB drive is "portable", but it's still not convenient-by-default. OS X.app bundles are packages -- the equivalent to a program's subfolder within \Program Files\ on a Windows disk. Unlike Windows, though, they keep all their dependencies outside of System-level frameworks inside the package.
To be fair, though, it would be nice to have the ability to do something similar to what OS X has supported for ages: copying the app folder and user home folders onto a new machine and having essentially the entire user-space experience transplanted, as well as being able to simply write over the existing System folder with one (from a backup image or from the installer image) and have a working computer. I know a lot of the reasons that's viable is because of the limited hardware support required, but given the nature of WOW64 and the potent self-healing Windows 8.1 has (I've used PowerShell to run repairs on systems with basically the whole Windows folder thrashed and had it fix itself) I'm hopeful it is in the future.
I don't think the government should have any special access to encrypted data, but I also understand their logic. While the 4th Amendment protects against unlawful searches, it does also allow them if a warrant has been issued. If you lock up your papers, property or home the locks can be forced, if needed, to permit a search. With encryption not only is it possible to make "forcing the lock" extremely tough, but it's possible to mathematically prove an algorithm is perfectly unbreakable. That only leaves the approach of compelling suspects to hand over their keypairs, which some people think would violate the 5th Amendment -- I disagree. Decrypting your data is NOT the same as being compelled to give testimony, it's actually more like having to hand over the keys to your car so a search warrant can be executed. The storage medium is intangible and impregnable, but we're still talking about a device (whether a huge vault or a phone) which stores property securely. A law which lets the court keep you locked up indefinitely, until you decrypt the data, would be reasonable as a middle-ground, balancing both personal and public interests.
I think the REAL reason the government wants a backdoor is because, if they had to compel the keys from you to do the search, it would be necessary to divulge the fact they ARE doing the search.
Agreed. I've noticed the aforementioned tendency for PCs "in the wild" to slow down, but not once has it been due to the length of time since the last clean install. The people with this issue fall into 2 overall categories: people who know nothing about system maintenance, and people who know just enough to be dangerous. Group 1 typically end up with tons of bloatware, malware, and random spyware toolbars installed. Group 2 is aware of the problems plaguing Group 1 and think that "registry cleaners" are the solution, turning a perceived slowness into real software problems which bog things down.
Just because the app can be installed via the Google Play store doesn't mean it *has* to be installed that way. Android users can also transfer the app directly to each other via NFC (when available), WiFi, and Bluetooth.
They also have a strong distrust of medical science, deferring instead to traditional wisdom -- which in most cases hastens the spread of infectious diseases.
Calm down! This entire article is rumor and unsupported speculation, unless I missed something. I agree with you that Tor belongs in an extension, not in the stock Firefox.
Facebook was being used in lieu of posting a public ad in the Legal Notices of the local newspaper. No privacy required, it's a last-resort option for people intentionally making service difficult. This isn't a policy decision, the ex-husband was able to show to the court that she was using Facebook daily, so the judge decided that would be a more-definitive method that the newspaper. If she uses Facebook after the message is sent then it can be "reasonably" concluded that she should have seen it -- intentionally not opening one message so you can say you never read it doesn't get you off the hook, only delivery is required.
You're right. Technically you need to notify the police department in your new town within 24 or 48 hours (depends on state) of your new address. That update would be available to the process server / sheriff. While I've never heard of anyone prosecuted or fined for failing to do so, it also provides the courts with a way around the impasse -- you failed to follow through, so you don't get to complain when you get a default judgement against you or whatever.
After 3 attempts at service at the address on your license the court can instruct that a notice be placed in your local newspaper in lieu of delivering it personally. You won't be cited for contempt of court for not appearing, but you will be liable for any rulings against you; claiming you weren't notified is also not grounds to appeal a judgement unless you can show undue hardship, such as having been out of the jurisdiction at the time the notice was served. If the court can be shown that the person has been, and continues, to use a specific electronic messaging system, such as FB, Google+, then the court can elect to substitute notification via that method in lieu of newspaper ads. If you can show that someone used Facebook after notice was sent via FB, then it falls within "reasonable" expectation that it would have been seen -- intentionally ignoring it in your inbox won't profit you anything.
No, they had already tried notifying her by both post and in person. She failed to update her contact information with the court, knowing she was involved in an on-going case. The next step would have been to place a legal notice in the local newspaper for the jurisdiction; what are the chances she'd be reading those daily? Using Facebook is far more likely to result in her seeing the notice.. and even if she ignores it the court's obligation is fulfilled and the case can proceed without her presence.
You're correct. And the most important part, which everyone seems to be forgetting, is that this was an on-going case -- the woman already had been made a party to it; she knew she was supposed to keep updated contact information with the court clerk. It takes a trivial amount of effort, just a phone call in most jurisdictions, so the courts at that level can allow procedural changes like this when it's clear the party is intentionally or at least willfully failing to notify the clerk. It's not very smart, but some people do it thinking it'll prevent the case from proceeding.
Family Court judges don't set binding precedent for any court. Stare decisis requires a court to honor the decisions of a higher court within its appeals path. If the woman decides to appeal the court's use of Facebook and takes it to the Appellate Court then THAT court's decision would be binding -- but the decision would be whether FB is a legal notification method in lieu of the "Legal Notices" in the newspaper as a last-resort when the party has failed to maintain contact info with the court in an on-going case. Again, THIS NOTICE WAS FOR AN ON-GOING CASE, the woman KNEW she was a party to it, and failed to keep the court clerk apprised of how to contact her.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! I was checking to make sure someone pointed that out, the headline is demonstrably incorrect.
"...sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever." ~Ingrid NewKirk. She's right, I know one animal I'd like to see put to sleep.
Does your VPN use compression? Try running the VPN-routed test using testmy.net; they use random incompressible data for their testing.
Agreed. I'd also add: You don't need every drop to be the fastest that money can buy, just fast enough for the purpose. If the goal is to be able to max out the fiber from any single location in the house then you'll end up spending a lot of time and money; if you want each device to have at least as much bandwidth as required, but don't need to go beyond that, then you can use a mix of ethernet and wifi 802.11ac (or even 802.11n depending on needs).
I've got to finish paying off my phone, I had switched to AT&T Next so once that contract is up I'm probably going pre-paid. I use Google Voice for my main number anyway, so I can bounce between carriers once I get my phone *crossed fingers* unlocked.
"mucous membranes", mea culpa.
It's not "passing exposure" if you're near the person when they are coughing or vomiting. Both acts result in aerosolized bodily fluids, which are effective at transmitting the disease; you can't get Ebola through skin unless it's broken, but inhaling it or getting particulates into your mucus membranes will have a high likelihood of infecting you.
Communicability. Avian flu doesn't readily spread between humans, and the incubation time is much shorter than that of Ebola; Ebola can be spread to far more people before it becomes apparent that they are even sick.
Agreed. Many countries already do similar things for various types of livestock. The only difference here is that if some people die it isn't cutting into profits.
My bill showed my data and voice plans each as $20 more than the agreed-upon (in writing) rates selected back in January of this year. I had to argue on the phone for about half an hour, but they finally agreed to refund the money. I had to stay on the line while the CS rep filed a separate refund form for not only each month this happened, but for each of the charges. Since it was 9 months of wrongful billing it took an hour for her to refund me the 18 charges -- $360. In less than a year. I've been telling everyone I know who uses AT&T to double-check their bills because of this. Something similar happened to me with an insurance company which over-billed me by $600; by the time I got the money back it was $850 including the interest.
That's not accurate. A .jar file is run within the system's JVM (for security you shouldn't even install that junk), so it's sandboxed. Yes, you can do self-contained apps in Windows, but it requires the program's author to at least have allowed for it to be possible; you can't take any arbitrary program and just move it to a new computer and have it work. Any app that's been converted for use from a USB drive is "portable", but it's still not convenient-by-default. OS X .app bundles are packages -- the equivalent to a program's subfolder within \Program Files\ on a Windows disk. Unlike Windows, though, they keep all their dependencies outside of System-level frameworks inside the package.
To be fair, though, it would be nice to have the ability to do something similar to what OS X has supported for ages: copying the app folder and user home folders onto a new machine and having essentially the entire user-space experience transplanted, as well as being able to simply write over the existing System folder with one (from a backup image or from the installer image) and have a working computer. I know a lot of the reasons that's viable is because of the limited hardware support required, but given the nature of WOW64 and the potent self-healing Windows 8.1 has (I've used PowerShell to run repairs on systems with basically the whole Windows folder thrashed and had it fix itself) I'm hopeful it is in the future.
I don't think the government should have any special access to encrypted data, but I also understand their logic. While the 4th Amendment protects against unlawful searches, it does also allow them if a warrant has been issued. If you lock up your papers, property or home the locks can be forced, if needed, to permit a search. With encryption not only is it possible to make "forcing the lock" extremely tough, but it's possible to mathematically prove an algorithm is perfectly unbreakable. That only leaves the approach of compelling suspects to hand over their keypairs, which some people think would violate the 5th Amendment -- I disagree. Decrypting your data is NOT the same as being compelled to give testimony, it's actually more like having to hand over the keys to your car so a search warrant can be executed. The storage medium is intangible and impregnable, but we're still talking about a device (whether a huge vault or a phone) which stores property securely. A law which lets the court keep you locked up indefinitely, until you decrypt the data, would be reasonable as a middle-ground, balancing both personal and public interests.
I think the REAL reason the government wants a backdoor is because, if they had to compel the keys from you to do the search, it would be necessary to divulge the fact they ARE doing the search.
Agreed. I've noticed the aforementioned tendency for PCs "in the wild" to slow down, but not once has it been due to the length of time since the last clean install. The people with this issue fall into 2 overall categories: people who know nothing about system maintenance, and people who know just enough to be dangerous. Group 1 typically end up with tons of bloatware, malware, and random spyware toolbars installed. Group 2 is aware of the problems plaguing Group 1 and think that "registry cleaners" are the solution, turning a perceived slowness into real software problems which bog things down.
I've often enjoyed the zesty zip feature of miracle whip.
Just because the app can be installed via the Google Play store doesn't mean it *has* to be installed that way. Android users can also transfer the app directly to each other via NFC (when available), WiFi, and Bluetooth.
Hush, don't give away the secret Ebola cure or everyone will want it!
They also have a strong distrust of medical science, deferring instead to traditional wisdom -- which in most cases hastens the spread of infectious diseases.
Calm down! This entire article is rumor and unsupported speculation, unless I missed something. I agree with you that Tor belongs in an extension, not in the stock Firefox.
Facebook was being used in lieu of posting a public ad in the Legal Notices of the local newspaper. No privacy required, it's a last-resort option for people intentionally making service difficult. This isn't a policy decision, the ex-husband was able to show to the court that she was using Facebook daily, so the judge decided that would be a more-definitive method that the newspaper. If she uses Facebook after the message is sent then it can be "reasonably" concluded that she should have seen it -- intentionally not opening one message so you can say you never read it doesn't get you off the hook, only delivery is required.
You're right. Technically you need to notify the police department in your new town within 24 or 48 hours (depends on state) of your new address. That update would be available to the process server / sheriff. While I've never heard of anyone prosecuted or fined for failing to do so, it also provides the courts with a way around the impasse -- you failed to follow through, so you don't get to complain when you get a default judgement against you or whatever.
After 3 attempts at service at the address on your license the court can instruct that a notice be placed in your local newspaper in lieu of delivering it personally. You won't be cited for contempt of court for not appearing, but you will be liable for any rulings against you; claiming you weren't notified is also not grounds to appeal a judgement unless you can show undue hardship, such as having been out of the jurisdiction at the time the notice was served. If the court can be shown that the person has been, and continues, to use a specific electronic messaging system, such as FB, Google+, then the court can elect to substitute notification via that method in lieu of newspaper ads. If you can show that someone used Facebook after notice was sent via FB, then it falls within "reasonable" expectation that it would have been seen -- intentionally ignoring it in your inbox won't profit you anything.
No, they had already tried notifying her by both post and in person. She failed to update her contact information with the court, knowing she was involved in an on-going case. The next step would have been to place a legal notice in the local newspaper for the jurisdiction; what are the chances she'd be reading those daily? Using Facebook is far more likely to result in her seeing the notice.. and even if she ignores it the court's obligation is fulfilled and the case can proceed without her presence.
You're correct. And the most important part, which everyone seems to be forgetting, is that this was an on-going case -- the woman already had been made a party to it; she knew she was supposed to keep updated contact information with the court clerk. It takes a trivial amount of effort, just a phone call in most jurisdictions, so the courts at that level can allow procedural changes like this when it's clear the party is intentionally or at least willfully failing to notify the clerk. It's not very smart, but some people do it thinking it'll prevent the case from proceeding.
Family Court judges don't set binding precedent for any court. Stare decisis requires a court to honor the decisions of a higher court within its appeals path. If the woman decides to appeal the court's use of Facebook and takes it to the Appellate Court then THAT court's decision would be binding -- but the decision would be whether FB is a legal notification method in lieu of the "Legal Notices" in the newspaper as a last-resort when the party has failed to maintain contact info with the court in an on-going case. Again, THIS NOTICE WAS FOR AN ON-GOING CASE, the woman KNEW she was a party to it, and failed to keep the court clerk apprised of how to contact her.