It probably has more to do with AV definitions and white-listing than a willingness to hand over code. Not only does the US government probably feel Kaspersky could whitelist Russian malware/heuristics, they also can't strong arm a Russian company to white-list their own.
I've long been an advocate of e-books or tablets for inmates as they have the potential to catch on and be a real game changer if the politically correct sadists don't shoot down the problem. Staggering amounts of people who end up in jail/prison lack basic literacy skills. Far too many jails also lack decent libraries, or even opportunities to finish school. Start using audio books and movies with captioning and you'll see the problem with recidivism begin to solve itself. Empowering inmates with education and entertainment, especially on a platform where every interaction can be closely monitored, you even develop a control group for assessing psychological behavior. Imagine if people actually learn a skill, trade, or even sharpen their technical literacy in ways never possible before due to inmate safety, cost or other barriers.
Okay so this rule means they're going to have to get your consent. Will they put it on page 55 of the end-user license agreement you aren't reading and just agreeing to anyway when you sign up?
This solves nothing. The problem is a lack of competition.
Any candidate that has a poll on their "plan" page that even entertains the notion of Jon Stewart and Neil Degrasse Tyson for VP has already convinced me to stop listening.
As a person adherent to the "dimwitted ideology", I concur and I don't think he believes what he preaches. He's not his father. He can scream civil liberties but refuses to answer why he voted for Feinstein's version of NDAA 2013 which had a huge gaping loophole that was on its face supposed to fix the provision that allowed the indefinite detention of Americans without trial. Even his buddy Congressman Amash publicly criticized the amendment and voted against it, but Rand went and voted for it anyway.
Article I Section 8 gives also gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. Tesla is trading from California to Michigan. Even beyond that, the 10th amendment puts the power into the states to handle things not enumerated to the federal government. Michigan chose to regulate this for better or worse, so it's out of the rights of the people. And yes, Michigan citizens can and should question why these protectionist regulations exist.
Except direct sales of new vehicles was already banned before this was enacted.
If some law passed that allowed direct manufacturer to consumer sales, it would be labeled by politicians as a job killing measure that would kill small businesses. Typical election politics.
The operative language of MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) prohibits a person from "wilfully [using] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". As used in the statute, the term "eavesdrop" means to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse". MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase "of others" might have been excluded or changed to "of others or with others".
Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to "[any] person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *". We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words "of others" in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words "[any] person who is present or who is not present" merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be "present" during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.
At least in my state (MI), video surveillance does not need any notification where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, but audio requires consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
Imagine what fulfilling roles people might accomplish rather than soldering. Same thing was said about telephone operators, secretaries, assembly line workers in auto plants, etc. Evolve. Learn a new trade or skill. It's how it's always been and always will be.
If we're going to entertain the notion of a cover up, the most plausible theory in my mind is it was hijacked, and later intercepted by fighter jets from some country's air force and shot down. There's plenty of reasons for keeping that scenario a secret.
He just wants to destroy the concept of privacy for his children early since they'll live in a society with none. It's for the security of the entire nation as his kids could be terrorists.
What's next, admission that Barnaby Jack was classified as a foreign terrorist and assassinated? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised since the term hacking is now becoming synonymous with terrorism.
Irrespective of whether Google should be liable for legal damages, there's a big distinction between logging 802.11 proble requests with a source MAC address and actual content of communications between two entities. The issue for Google was specifically logging unencrypted data as it channel hopped and dumped the traffic into presumably pcap files. I think it's a question of the scope of what you're logging.
Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.
That's nonsense. Yes they do and it was never "settled long ago." See video game bans, library book bans, black armband bans, etc. all upheld by SCOTUS. Free speech and the right to seek information is free speech. COPPA only exists because it hasn't been ruled on by the courts.
> When you have 95% of the country always voting for their team, based on the assertion that the other team is wrong, nothing changes.
The keyword here is country. These groups need to be cut down to size. We called them states, counties and towns once. More diversity via localized government means a lot more living options with different standards.
Slashdot Mirror
It probably has more to do with AV definitions and white-listing than a willingness to hand over code. Not only does the US government probably feel Kaspersky could whitelist Russian malware/heuristics, they also can't strong arm a Russian company to white-list their own.
I've long been an advocate of e-books or tablets for inmates as they have the potential to catch on and be a real game changer if the politically correct sadists don't shoot down the problem. Staggering amounts of people who end up in jail/prison lack basic literacy skills. Far too many jails also lack decent libraries, or even opportunities to finish school. Start using audio books and movies with captioning and you'll see the problem with recidivism begin to solve itself. Empowering inmates with education and entertainment, especially on a platform where every interaction can be closely monitored, you even develop a control group for assessing psychological behavior. Imagine if people actually learn a skill, trade, or even sharpen their technical literacy in ways never possible before due to inmate safety, cost or other barriers.
Okay so this rule means they're going to have to get your consent. Will they put it on page 55 of the end-user license agreement you aren't reading and just agreeing to anyway when you sign up?
This solves nothing. The problem is a lack of competition.
Any candidate that has a poll on their "plan" page that even entertains the notion of Jon Stewart and Neil Degrasse Tyson for VP has already convinced me to stop listening.
As a person adherent to the "dimwitted ideology", I concur and I don't think he believes what he preaches. He's not his father. He can scream civil liberties but refuses to answer why he voted for Feinstein's version of NDAA 2013 which had a huge gaping loophole that was on its face supposed to fix the provision that allowed the indefinite detention of Americans without trial. Even his buddy Congressman Amash publicly criticized the amendment and voted against it, but Rand went and voted for it anyway.
Whatever it was, it probably was backed by a UPS.
Article I Section 8 gives also gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. Tesla is trading from California to Michigan. Even beyond that, the 10th amendment puts the power into the states to handle things not enumerated to the federal government. Michigan chose to regulate this for better or worse, so it's out of the rights of the people. And yes, Michigan citizens can and should question why these protectionist regulations exist.
Except direct sales of new vehicles was already banned before this was enacted.
If some law passed that allowed direct manufacturer to consumer sales, it would be labeled by politicians as a job killing measure that would kill small businesses. Typical election politics.
No, you might just get extradited and face charges there. Treaties and such...
Your latency and unreliability comes from your mobile links. Get better providers or find a different lower-latency game to play.
Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481; 324 NW2d 58 (1982) clarified it:
The operative language of MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) prohibits a person from "wilfully [using] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". As used in the statute, the term "eavesdrop" means to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse". MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase "of others" might have been excluded or changed to "of others or with others".
Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to "[any] person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *". We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words "of others" in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words "[any] person who is present or who is not present" merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be "present" during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.
Source: http://www.expertlaw.com/forum...
At least in my state (MI), video surveillance does not need any notification where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, but audio requires consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
Awesome! Let's have everyone use their index finger, touch the same spot and then eat a bunch of food with their hands. What could possibly go wrong?
Imagine what fulfilling roles people might accomplish rather than soldering. Same thing was said about telephone operators, secretaries, assembly line workers in auto plants, etc. Evolve. Learn a new trade or skill. It's how it's always been and always will be.
If we're going to entertain the notion of a cover up, the most plausible theory in my mind is it was hijacked, and later intercepted by fighter jets from some country's air force and shot down. There's plenty of reasons for keeping that scenario a secret.
Facist
He just wants to destroy the concept of privacy for his children early since they'll live in a society with none. It's for the security of the entire nation as his kids could be terrorists.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/25/henry-ford-hemp-plastic-car-stronger/
Does Ford think their pickup truck clientele is going to have their masculinity threatened with plastic bodies made of weed?
What's next, admission that Barnaby Jack was classified as a foreign terrorist and assassinated?
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised since the term hacking is now becoming synonymous with terrorism.
Irrespective of whether Google should be liable for legal damages, there's a big distinction between logging 802.11 proble requests with a source MAC address and actual content of communications between two entities. The issue for Google was specifically logging unencrypted data as it channel hopped and dumped the traffic into presumably pcap files. I think it's a question of the scope of what you're logging.
Bon Appetit:
http://citp.princeton.edu/research/memory/
Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.
That's nonsense. Yes they do and it was never "settled long ago." See video game bans, library book bans, black armband bans, etc. all upheld by SCOTUS. Free speech and the right to seek information is free speech. COPPA only exists because it hasn't been ruled on by the courts.
Authorities won't need to freeze RAM sticks anymore to extract encryption keys in memory when seizing servers?
Or drive a few miles around Manhattan.
Seems a lot easier to write malware.
> When you have 95% of the country always voting for their team, based on the assertion that the other team is wrong, nothing changes.
The keyword here is country. These groups need to be cut down to size. We called them states, counties and towns once. More diversity via localized government means a lot more living options with different standards.