Or any traditional career, of that part. I once had a line on central switchboard but was build separately. The phone company screw up royally, charging $1 04 $2 for calls that should have been a dime. My bill was only a few hundred dollars, and even when I got someone to issue a credit (the commercial people insisted it was a home account, and the home people insisted it was a commercial one) it never showed up on my account.I had faxes stating the credit was applied, at one point the CEO's office rep was involved but they never figured it out. The phone person at the residence said they had talked to the company and was told it was not worth the trouble to fix the billing... A friend, who worked with the company's CEO, said just don't pay it; they will eventually write it off which is what they did. It never should up on my credit report either, probably because they didn't have any information on me other than a box at the university I was attending. I kept a thick file for number of years and finally chucked it after never hearing anything again; I wonder who was getting hundreds of dollars of credits each month, probably whoever now had my old number.
So what you're saying is, that Google's own employees - not one among the vast number of them - cannot find this type of exploit, or aren't allocated to this type of exploit finding, so basically Google has opted to contract that work out in the form of a "bounty program"?
It's not so much a question of having the technical smarts but rather Google has limited bandwidth to do this, so they can't cause every possible idea, and outside eyes may look at the problem differently and come up with something not apparent to Google's staff. One challenge people have is they tend to look at problems based on their knowledge and experience and may not approach it from a different angle and come up with something new; it's not a lack of smarts but becoming conditioned as to how to approach a problem or challenge. An added benefit is Google potentially gets vulnerabilities exposed on the cheap, or even for free. Not a bad deal, for them.
For 300k they potentially get bugs found that could cost much more if they did this internally and outside eyes may take approaches Google never thought of. Of course, given the potential value to others beside Google they may not find out about the most serious vulnerabilities because they are much more valuable than $200k; and some hackers that didn't get anything may continue to probe and find vulnerabilities to sell. State actors have no reason to reveal their secrets because those are weapons to deploy when needed. While this is good publicity getting the word out you pay market rates for vulnerabilities might work better, plus possibly forcing prices up to where it is potentially unprofitable.
Anyone Remember CompuAdd?? or Gateway??, not many do, but after being giants in computer sales on line they opened retail stores and it crippled them and cost them going out of business. Amazon needs to be extremely careful, what is that quote, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it".
Anyone Remember CompuAdd?? or Gateway??, not many do, but after being giants in computer sales on line they opened retail stores and it crippled them and cost them going out of business. Amazon needs to be extremely careful, what is that quote, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it".
Gateway had a number of problems when it went into retail. First and foremost the were a low coat seller and retail stores added costs at a time when prices were starting to drop. They spent a lot of money making stores look like farms complete with silos but you couldn't actually buy and walk out with it. You had to wait for it to be shipped. In addition, they were selling a product that was no different from what you could het right seay at other stores nor did they offer anything uniguevso beyond the novelty there was no compelling reason to return after you went once to see what the noise was about. Amazon so far has used small popups limited to Amazon branded products so the cost is low and Can use them to drive sales of ebooks etc. it will be interesting to see how tey do.
IT is the equivalent of welding these days. Until the US vocational schools start cranking out IT and programmer techs companies are going to fill the positions with Indians.
I think they are similar in that there are two aspects to welding - one i step skills trade and the other is the engineering and science aspect that requires advanced education. You can get a BS, MS and PhD in Welding Engineering for example, where the focus is on the science of welding and goes far beyond sticking two pieces of metal together; and the welding engineers I met have great respect for good welders. Similarly, you can teach a bunch of kids coding basics but don't expect them to understand computer science; do real CS types respect coders?. Also, welding and programming are similar in that anyone can strike an arc or write code, to do it at a master level takes experience, practice and talent. Fortunately for welders, having that type of skill means you are in demand, for coders it simply means you are too expensive and can be replaced by a couple keyboard bangers just out of school.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damage the other side. And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Separate from what she did, the classification system is broke in many ways. Stuff gets over classified, classified differently in different agencies, and get classified after the fact. I can see someone not realizing something should be classified. Aggregate unclassified data can become classified. Even the First Law of Thermodynamics is Confidential or at least was a while ago in parts of the Navy.
The first three seconds of the (longer) trailer of the first season lost me with:
LOADHIGH A:/SYS/BIOS
PRINT/D:LPT1/A:/SYS/BIOS
What the hell is this? TI-RTOS? Nope. CP/M, or its bastardized cousin, PC/DOS? Nope. Sorry - with a name like "Halt and Catch Fire", I'd have expected something better than stupid TV writer gibberish.
hell Yah. Star Trek lost me at the whole faster than light space travel thing, Firefly with English and Chinese speaking human beings in a distant solar system... That whole "Willing suspension of disbelief" thing is overrated...
The issue is not VR but how to combine the real equipment (the tactile) with the environment (the visual). Ideally a simulator allows someone to operate the "real" equipment while providing a visual display similar to what they see in real life, A flight simulator, for example, provides a real cockpit with 3 degrees of movement and provides a visual display of the environment they would see if they were actually flying so they "move" throughout the environment as if it were real by combining tactile and visual feedback in response to their actions. The advantage a simulator has is you can stop and replay the results to teach the person and show them what went well or wrong immediately without adverse results. It doesn't replace doing it for real but allows for making mistakes without adverse results. It also, if done right, can provide realistic training at a lower cost. I've come out of control room and fire control simulator seasons in such environments as sweaty and with as much a pucker factor as if it were real. For a less stressful example, a while back I got to play with a simulation that used fake bullets to allow you to fire hand held weapons at a target to practice shooting. While it wasn't a perfect simulation of say an M16, it let you fire a lot more rounds to gain proficiency which coupled with real rounds at a range, helped maintain your skill. You didn't have to get range time and fire expensive, and thus limited, rounds, compared to the simulator bullets, so you could practice a lot more and at more convenient times than at a range. The Army's problem is they have to many simulators without thinking how to integrate simulation with real world experience and in some cases replaced the tactile feedback with virtual simulations, at least that's what I got from the article, and at a higher cost in some cases based on actual use.
No kidding, the days of Gopher were the peak of internet usefulness. Imagine what could have been achieved if images, videos, and the Army of Lamers had never come! The dystopia we got is now requiring us to watch 5 minutes of inarticulate video just to get information we could have skimmed in 15 seconds. And when there is no video, we have to get that same text spread across 3 pages full of ads that each take 15 seconds to load regardless of your ISP speed.
I blame it on AOL for creating eternal September...
I remember it, at 65, actually I remember huge batch only mainframes. On a more serious note, I have a lot of time for Gopher, Lynx and all the 'simpifiers', I'd prefer everyone to have knowledge and communication at a low bandwidth rather than adverts, emojiis (whatever they are) and pictures of cats. My vision, going forward is goodbye port 80 and port 443, let's start again.
It was pretty amazing how useful and fast, even at 1200 baud, the Internet was back in the pre-graphics days. Gopher, Fetch, FTP, Whois an Usenet, and Lynx as a browser that focused on information, not self loading videos, animated ads, and other bandwidth and resource hogs.
Side note: A few years ago when I was doing my PhD, we did a nice little experiment when we found a floor-plan of an CS institute at Berkeley: We tried to identify which PhD students were American and which were not. We ended up with something like 1 in 10 US and 1 in 10 unsure. The rest were from abroad. So my take is the insult here is not by the people saying the truth about the US education system, the insult is to those going through that defective system.
Unless you want to do research or teach, a PhD, even an MS, adds little to your income vs a BS; as a result many graduates forgo further formal education for making money. You are often better of, financially, getting an MBA and forgoing tech work than spending the time and money to get a PhD. Anecdotally, several PhD's I worked with that were foreign born said they did a PhD simply because it made getting a green card easier and they could make more in the US than back home. Another issue the tech world has is they are competing for talent with non-tech firms, such as banks, that will pay a lot more for talent; so the tech firms turn to cheaper labor sources rather than compete for home grown talent; especially if all they are really looking for is cheap coding labor and not research talent.
correct, but cargo ships that have a passenger carrying capacity are not that unusual, but AFAIK no passenger liners were nukes. I knew someone who was a reactor operator on the Savannah, you're right it was an interesting vessel.
Is it reliable and do what you need it to do? Can you afford it? If the answer is yes, leave the measurbating to the tech nerds and buy what meets your needs. if its OS X, get a Mac, if Windows does it buy a machine that runs it. If OSS is your thing get a machine that runs Linux. I have several Macs 5 or more years old nah are still in daily use and do what I need just fine. I don't care if some hipster at Starbucks thinks it déclassé. YMMV.
As for MacRumors, they seem to be of the opinion that a major update is on the way and it is worth waiting to see before buying. I agree with that sentiment if you do not absolutely need one now or want the free Beats...
1. If he asks for your password, and you provide it... there's really no unlawful action there. He didn't force you to give it to him, and you had all the power and right in the world to not be an idiot and toss it out there. I wonder how long before somebody hacks Jack's email and scoops up all those yummy accounts.
2. You fucking gave the guy your password. That's not hacking. He needs to change his hashtag to #PostedByJohnson or #ThisUserWasDumbEnoughToGiveMeTheirPassword
While I agree with your common sense approach, the law may see things differently. If Twitter decided it was an unauthorized use, as they define unauthorized based on their TOS, someone could be charged. It would be a stupid waste of time and one would hope a judge, after he or she stopped laughing, tossed the case. It does illustrate how something that would be considered normal in the physical world, i.e. I give you the key to my diary to let you write in it, could be illegal in cloud space where you don't own the diary and thus someone else controls how you may use it and who may use it.
Then hope that they decide to implement there limited-capacity safe-mode feature rather than completely refusing to boot the phone. If they do that then you won't have a problem dialing in the first place.
I would think that thy would still allow 911 calling and possibly other numbers as well. They could even boot into a special phone only OS that is sandboxed from all the apps et on the normal OS so at minimum you have a working phone. Of course, you won't be able to do a minute by minute twitter feed of you bleeding out...
This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
You can recall it if needed, unlike an ICBM. This a/c would allow you to launch a retaliatory strike if you thought you were attacked and still have time to sop it if you were wrong.
“You’d have to be an idiot to get up in front of people and say, ‘I’m now going to trash $5 billion even though we’re that close to the finish line, and I’m going to quit human spaceflight.’
Sunk cost fallacy. How much was spent is irrelevant to the decision to stop or continue. It's spent and you aren't getting it back, so the only question is "can we afford the cost to make Shuttle viable as a spacecraft?"
"decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it" What? If the decrypted data doesn't match the data that was encrypted, you failed to decrypt it properly.
On a purely technical level I guess he's correct. Encrypted, the data is just a bunch of jazz and whirly bangs. Once decrypted it's actual data, so on a purely superficial level, with no understanding of encryption, I guess he's right.
Damnit
This a typical/. summary that mistakes what was actually said to make it sound more interesting. The agent said decrypted data is different from what was taking by the warrant, and thus you are not turning using the actual information taken in the search (i.e. the encrypted data) but that it still is forensically sound; he never said that's "contaminating it as forensic evidence" just it may still be less forensically sound than the actual encrypted data./. seems to imply somehow that makes the decrypted data not valid as evidence which clearly is BS.
It's not a strict thing, because that would take more effort, but they clearly have tried to put pokemon spawns in areas such that they can be reached on public property.
But not always succeeded, as the guy's whose house was marketed as a gym:
It was once an church and the developers apparently used an old reference to designate it a gym. Unfortunately, there is no way to get taken out of the game.
The agent didn't say it invalidated forensic evidence just that it wasn't quite as forensically solid but not exactly what was collected:
Had that data been encrypted, “It would still be valid, it still would have been accurate data; however, it would not have been as forensically sound as being able to turn over exactly what the government collected,” Alfin said.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't assume competence on Verizon's part.
Or any traditional career, of that part. I once had a line on central switchboard but was build separately. The phone company screw up royally, charging $1 04 $2 for calls that should have been a dime. My bill was only a few hundred dollars, and even when I got someone to issue a credit (the commercial people insisted it was a home account, and the home people insisted it was a commercial one) it never showed up on my account.I had faxes stating the credit was applied, at one point the CEO's office rep was involved but they never figured it out. The phone person at the residence said they had talked to the company and was told it was not worth the trouble to fix the billing... A friend, who worked with the company's CEO, said just don't pay it; they will eventually write it off which is what they did. It never should up on my credit report either, probably because they didn't have any information on me other than a box at the university I was attending. I kept a thick file for number of years and finally chucked it after never hearing anything again; I wonder who was getting hundreds of dollars of credits each month, probably whoever now had my old number.
So what you're saying is, that Google's own employees - not one among the vast number of them - cannot find this type of exploit, or aren't allocated to this type of exploit finding, so basically Google has opted to contract that work out in the form of a "bounty program"?
It's not so much a question of having the technical smarts but rather Google has limited bandwidth to do this, so they can't cause every possible idea, and outside eyes may look at the problem differently and come up with something not apparent to Google's staff. One challenge people have is they tend to look at problems based on their knowledge and experience and may not approach it from a different angle and come up with something new; it's not a lack of smarts but becoming conditioned as to how to approach a problem or challenge. An added benefit is Google potentially gets vulnerabilities exposed on the cheap, or even for free. Not a bad deal, for them.
For 300k they potentially get bugs found that could cost much more if they did this internally and outside eyes may take approaches Google never thought of. Of course, given the potential value to others beside Google they may not find out about the most serious vulnerabilities because they are much more valuable than $200k; and some hackers that didn't get anything may continue to probe and find vulnerabilities to sell. State actors have no reason to reveal their secrets because those are weapons to deploy when needed. While this is good publicity getting the word out you pay market rates for vulnerabilities might work better, plus possibly forcing prices up to where it is potentially unprofitable.
Anyone Remember CompuAdd?? or Gateway??, not many do, but after being giants in computer sales on line they opened retail stores and it crippled them and cost them going out of business. Amazon needs to be extremely careful, what is that quote, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it".
Anyone Remember CompuAdd?? or Gateway??, not many do, but after being giants in computer sales on line they opened retail stores and it crippled them and cost them going out of business. Amazon needs to be extremely careful, what is that quote, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it".
Gateway had a number of problems when it went into retail. First and foremost the were a low coat seller and retail stores added costs at a time when prices were starting to drop. They spent a lot of money making stores look like farms complete with silos but you couldn't actually buy and walk out with it. You had to wait for it to be shipped. In addition, they were selling a product that was no different from what you could het right seay at other stores nor did they offer anything uniguevso beyond the novelty there was no compelling reason to return after you went once to see what the noise was about. Amazon so far has used small popups limited to Amazon branded products so the cost is low and Can use them to drive sales of ebooks etc. it will be interesting to see how tey do.
IT is the equivalent of welding these days. Until the US vocational schools start cranking out IT and programmer techs companies are going to fill the positions with Indians.
I think they are similar in that there are two aspects to welding - one i step skills trade and the other is the engineering and science aspect that requires advanced education. You can get a BS, MS and PhD in Welding Engineering for example, where the focus is on the science of welding and goes far beyond sticking two pieces of metal together; and the welding engineers I met have great respect for good welders. Similarly, you can teach a bunch of kids coding basics but don't expect them to understand computer science; do real CS types respect coders?. Also, welding and programming are similar in that anyone can strike an arc or write code, to do it at a master level takes experience, practice and talent. Fortunately for welders, having that type of skill means you are in demand, for coders it simply means you are too expensive and can be replaced by a couple keyboard bangers just out of school.
Even if I were to stipulate to your assertion, having a private, insecure server for *years* is certainly an ongoing pattern.
However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred. Had she been sending and receiving classified traffic of years that would be a different story; but in this case there is no ongoing pattern of mishandling classified traffic.
From Comey:
They had an ongoing set of improper conversations on this unclassified system for years.
Now, even if you want to argue that it *wasn't* grossly negligent, surely you can admit that this should have been adjudicated in a trial, instead of bypassed by political appointees.
Not really, doing so simply devolves into one party looking to damage the others by using these things for political gain; ultimately things that really aren't a big deal become a chance for the Democrats or Republicans to get pay back or damage the other side. And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.
tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
Extremely careless is not grossly negligent; you can argue an ongoing pattern of being extremely careless handling classified material is grossly negligent, but a few isolated cases would probably not reach that level, at least not in a legal sense.
The scary part is that she didn't seem to understand the differences between handling classified data and unclassified data. Almost anyone else in government who mishandled classified data similarly would be a guest of a federal correctional facility for many years.
Separate from what she did, the classification system is broke in many ways. Stuff gets over classified, classified differently in different agencies, and get classified after the fact. I can see someone not realizing something should be classified. Aggregate unclassified data can become classified. Even the First Law of Thermodynamics is Confidential or at least was a while ago in parts of the Navy.
The first three seconds of the (longer) trailer of the first season lost me with:
LOADHIGH A:/SYS/BIOS
PRINT /D:LPT1 /A:/SYS/BIOS
What the hell is this? TI-RTOS? Nope. CP/M, or its bastardized cousin, PC/DOS? Nope. Sorry - with a name like "Halt and Catch Fire", I'd have expected something better than stupid TV writer gibberish.
hell Yah. Star Trek lost me at the whole faster than light space travel thing, Firefly with English and Chinese speaking human beings in a distant solar system... That whole "Willing suspension of disbelief" thing is overrated...
The issue is not VR but how to combine the real equipment (the tactile) with the environment (the visual). Ideally a simulator allows someone to operate the "real" equipment while providing a visual display similar to what they see in real life, A flight simulator, for example, provides a real cockpit with 3 degrees of movement and provides a visual display of the environment they would see if they were actually flying so they "move" throughout the environment as if it were real by combining tactile and visual feedback in response to their actions. The advantage a simulator has is you can stop and replay the results to teach the person and show them what went well or wrong immediately without adverse results. It doesn't replace doing it for real but allows for making mistakes without adverse results. It also, if done right, can provide realistic training at a lower cost. I've come out of control room and fire control simulator seasons in such environments as sweaty and with as much a pucker factor as if it were real. For a less stressful example, a while back I got to play with a simulation that used fake bullets to allow you to fire hand held weapons at a target to practice shooting. While it wasn't a perfect simulation of say an M16, it let you fire a lot more rounds to gain proficiency which coupled with real rounds at a range, helped maintain your skill. You didn't have to get range time and fire expensive, and thus limited, rounds, compared to the simulator bullets, so you could practice a lot more and at more convenient times than at a range. The Army's problem is they have to many simulators without thinking how to integrate simulation with real world experience and in some cases replaced the tactile feedback with virtual simulations, at least that's what I got from the article, and at a higher cost in some cases based on actual use.
No kidding, the days of Gopher were the peak of internet usefulness. Imagine what could have been achieved if images, videos, and the Army of Lamers had never come! The dystopia we got is now requiring us to watch 5 minutes of inarticulate video just to get information we could have skimmed in 15 seconds. And when there is no video, we have to get that same text spread across 3 pages full of ads that each take 15 seconds to load regardless of your ISP speed.
I blame it on AOL for creating eternal September...
I remember it, at 65, actually I remember huge batch only mainframes. On a more serious note, I have a lot of time for Gopher, Lynx and all the 'simpifiers', I'd prefer everyone to have knowledge and communication at a low bandwidth rather than adverts, emojiis (whatever they are) and pictures of cats. My vision, going forward is goodbye port 80 and port 443, let's start again.
It was pretty amazing how useful and fast, even at 1200 baud, the Internet was back in the pre-graphics days. Gopher, Fetch, FTP, Whois an Usenet, and Lynx as a browser that focused on information, not self loading videos, animated ads, and other bandwidth and resource hogs.
Side note: A few years ago when I was doing my PhD, we did a nice little experiment when we found a floor-plan of an CS institute at Berkeley: We tried to identify which PhD students were American and which were not. We ended up with something like 1 in 10 US and 1 in 10 unsure. The rest were from abroad. So my take is the insult here is not by the people saying the truth about the US education system, the insult is to those going through that defective system.
Unless you want to do research or teach, a PhD, even an MS, adds little to your income vs a BS; as a result many graduates forgo further formal education for making money. You are often better of, financially, getting an MBA and forgoing tech work than spending the time and money to get a PhD. Anecdotally, several PhD's I worked with that were foreign born said they did a PhD simply because it made getting a green card easier and they could make more in the US than back home. Another issue the tech world has is they are competing for talent with non-tech firms, such as banks, that will pay a lot more for talent; so the tech firms turn to cheaper labor sources rather than compete for home grown talent; especially if all they are really looking for is cheap coding labor and not research talent.
The NS Savannah was a mixed cargo passenger ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It had 30 staterooms and looked like it would have have been a very interesting way to travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
correct, but cargo ships that have a passenger carrying capacity are not that unusual, but AFAIK no passenger liners were nukes. I knew someone who was a reactor operator on the Savannah, you're right it was an interesting vessel.
You sound like you might know: Have there ever been any nuclear-powered passenger vessels, or do all these big luxury liners burn diesel?
No, only icebreakers and cargo ships as commercial vessels.
but is there a reason it's so easy to reprogram the key fobs to start a car?
People lose keys, keys break, and non-replaceable batteries die.
As for MacRumors, they seem to be of the opinion that a major update is on the way and it is worth waiting to see before buying. I agree with that sentiment if you do not absolutely need one now or want the free Beats...
1. If he asks for your password, and you provide it... there's really no unlawful action there. He didn't force you to give it to him, and you had all the power and right in the world to not be an idiot and toss it out there. I wonder how long before somebody hacks Jack's email and scoops up all those yummy accounts. 2. You fucking gave the guy your password. That's not hacking. He needs to change his hashtag to #PostedByJohnson or #ThisUserWasDumbEnoughToGiveMeTheirPassword
While I agree with your common sense approach, the law may see things differently. If Twitter decided it was an unauthorized use, as they define unauthorized based on their TOS, someone could be charged. It would be a stupid waste of time and one would hope a judge, after he or she stopped laughing, tossed the case. It does illustrate how something that would be considered normal in the physical world, i.e. I give you the key to my diary to let you write in it, could be illegal in cloud space where you don't own the diary and thus someone else controls how you may use it and who may use it.
Then hope that they decide to implement there limited-capacity safe-mode feature rather than completely refusing to boot the phone. If they do that then you won't have a problem dialing in the first place.
I would think that thy would still allow 911 calling and possibly other numbers as well. They could even boot into a special phone only OS that is sandboxed from all the apps et on the normal OS so at minimum you have a working phone. Of course, you won't be able to do a minute by minute twitter feed of you bleeding out...
This is better than an ICBM because...? I don't see the point.
You can recall it if needed, unlike an ICBM. This a/c would allow you to launch a retaliatory strike if you thought you were attacked and still have time to sop it if you were wrong.
“You’d have to be an idiot to get up in front of people and say, ‘I’m now going to trash $5 billion even though we’re that close to the finish line, and I’m going to quit human spaceflight.’
Sunk cost fallacy. How much was spent is irrelevant to the decision to stop or continue. It's spent and you aren't getting it back, so the only question is "can we afford the cost to make Shuttle viable as a spacecraft?"
He is no friend of the people .
Of course not, at the risk of being redundant I'll point out he's a Republican,
"decrypting encrypted data fundamentally alters it" What? If the decrypted data doesn't match the data that was encrypted, you failed to decrypt it properly. On a purely technical level I guess he's correct. Encrypted, the data is just a bunch of jazz and whirly bangs. Once decrypted it's actual data, so on a purely superficial level, with no understanding of encryption, I guess he's right. Damnit
This a typical /. summary that mistakes what was actually said to make it sound more interesting. The agent said decrypted data is different from what was taking by the warrant, and thus you are not turning using the actual information taken in the search (i.e. the encrypted data) but that it still is forensically sound; he never said that's "contaminating it as forensic evidence" just it may still be less forensically sound than the actual encrypted data. /. seems to imply somehow that makes the decrypted data not valid as evidence which clearly is BS.
It's not a strict thing, because that would take more effort, but they clearly have tried to put pokemon spawns in areas such that they can be reached on public property.
But not always succeeded, as the guy's whose house was marketed as a gym:
http://wgntv.com/2016/07/11/mans-home-mistakenly-set-as-pokemon-go-gym/
It was once an church and the developers apparently used an old reference to designate it a gym. Unfortunately, there is no way to get taken out of the game.
The agent didn't say it invalidated forensic evidence just that it wasn't quite as forensically solid but not exactly what was collected:
Had that data been encrypted, “It would still be valid, it still would have been accurate data; however, it would not have been as forensically sound as being able to turn over exactly what the government collected,” Alfin said.