how is this any different than say, a modified router? Or a computer acting as a gateway? Is this device just intercepting unencrypted network traffic? Like any point on the internet can?
That would be no more earth-shattering than hearing that someone found a way to read my postal mail.
If you want privacy, you should be using end-to-end network encryption of some sort. Be it VPN, pgp email, ssh, etc. If you're sending in the clear and trusting every member of a huge network of random actors between you and your destination, you're stupid. Once it leaves your computer, it's fair game. It doesn't matter if it's getting sucked up at one of the NSA's big facilities, your ISP, the public kiosk's router, or a random ethernet adapter you found laying on the ground.
While I'm not a fan of the "we need to have a law for everything" mentality, this I could make an exception for. Storage of password in plain or recoverable formay should consitute criminal neglegence. Site operators have NO legitimate need to keep plaintext passwords, and expose users to that risk without warning. Imagine if they did give warning?
Creating new account. Enter username and password below. (note: your password will be stored in plaintext)
The question is how much of the energy was transferred to the solar panels.
When the density of the particle is high relative to the hardness of the target, there's a very high chance for penetration and low energy transfer.
But when the projectile density is relatively low compared to the target hardness, the projectle is usually deformed and stops inside the target. Or as in this case, is completely atomized, causing nearly perfect energy transfer. (approaching 100%)
So being able to ignore energy loss in the transfer make the math and modeling pretty easy. You just imagine an explosion at the point of contact, with about double the energy of the projectile. (since explosions are omnidirectional, wasting 50% of their energy in the other direction on impact, and in this case, 100% of the energy is transferred into the target)
And at orbital and escape velocities, delta-V is so high that even a very low M yields a lot of joules.
Final thing to consider, these panels aren't terribly sturdy. They're made to be extremely light, store compactly, and self-deploy/assemble in space, making them overall pretty delicate. This isn't built anything like the solar panel on your roof. It's more like the model car in your dad's display cabinet. Shoot that thing with an airsoft gun and see what happens.
"You found a way to legally avoid paying about $1B of what we would normally collect from you. So we're going to fine you $1B for being so crafty!"
No, that's not going to fly. And I don't care who it is that did it. That's not a practice I want applied to me, so that's not a practice that I want to see applied to anybody else.
fresh out of school: + willing to work some to much OT without extra pay + will settle for less pay and benefits + cheap to replace if necessary + unlikely to give a big fight if fired ("easy to fire") + little to no lost assets if fired or quits + more open to new ideas and changing tech + cheaper insurance costs
experienced / old-timers: + heavilty trained and experienced at their position. efficient. certified. + has learned "the big picture" in operations, understands subtle effects and can head off future problems + has valuable and possibly unique organizational knowledge (undocumented information and processes) + has formed working relationships with other employees, improved efficiency and communications + more reliable attendance + less likely to leave suddenly
But the big issue I have with this article is how they act so surprised that a company more frequently ends up replacing someone with another person that's younger. Um, people get old. If you keep replacing your workforce with people of the same or greater age, eventually you're going to be running on a staff of people all hanging around retirement age. You have to get new blood in continuously, it's required for a business to continue. I don't see validity in calling "age descrimination" on hiring. On selective firing, YES, definitely. But not on hiring. I don't agree with the "equal opportunity employer" thing, I believe that a company/owner should be able to decide who they hire. Once you've established the business relationship with them, then some rules need to kick in, to avoid "disposable/throwaway employee" resource issues.
A lot of companies seem to see their HR as a source of funding they can tap into when times get tough, "reducing staffing costs" by canning the seniors and hiring cheap replacements. This rarely works out well for them. They don't need government rules to bring the pain, they bring it to themselves. Radio Shack just got done committing "suicide by seniority-culling". They fired everyone that either was doing well or knew how to run the stores, and replaced them with cheap labor that was inexperienced, idiot, or both. (they did several other stupid things that are OT, but this was one of the "big three" that took them down) And down they went. It's a self-limiting problem. If HP wants to lobotomize their human resources, I say let them. We'll see them bought out under duress after they tank a few years from now by someplace like walmart.
the reason we don't have actual TV channels on the Apple TV is because the company tried to strong-arm networks -- and failed.
I'd always been under the impression it was the networks that tended to be the "bullies" that were doing the "strong-arming" around the block? I guess life's rough when you're used to being the 400lb gorilla when the 600lb gator enters the scene.
Reminds me of a very dated newspaper cartoon from a long time ago, picture godzilla (labeled "Microsoft") rampaging through a city. He gets surprised by a tap on the shoulder from a much larger godzilla, labelled "AOL". Yeah, that was a long time ago, but you get the idea.
Moral of the story: bullying is OK as long as you're the one DOING the bullying, but quicky becomes NOT cool when you're the one GETTING bullied. I find it very hard to be sympathetic to a bully who just got the tables turned on them. Cry me a river.
I have the same question, I know that if I don't unlock my phone with my finger for several days (usually over the weekend) or if it powers down due to exhausted battery. it will require my entering my passcode. Unless they have a way to trick the phone into thinking no time has passed, I don't see what good a fingerpint will do them? The secure enclave will have dumped the fingerprint-tied key by that point and will require the regular passcode.
Sounds like the employee needs firing. They're not being blamed for the bad PR so much as for their screw-up. The boss is just throwing the "get it taken down or you're fired!" as a punishment for not doing his job. Damage control is the first step in the response, "stop the heavy bleeding". Which isn't the security, it's the bad PR. So that's his first job. If he succeeds at that, his second job will be to fix the problem.
If he can't kill the bad PR, he's out immediately, someone else will come in to fix the app and try to fix the PR.
Sorry dude, you were party to making a product that claimed to protect my security but did not. I can't sympathize with you. "I didn't do my job, caused you problems, and now I got caught, please help!" no. Maybe next time you'll take your job a little more seriously and not place thousands of customers needlessly at risk.
G2A states that TinyBuild's retail partners are the ones selling the codes on G2A, not scammers, despite the thousands of codes they lost through their online store to fraudulent credit card purchases.
Since when did "selling stolen property" become legal???
the copyright holder is simply the only party with the information to do this and it's their property to begin with. So in no way and at no time will it or can it ever be appropriate to shift this burden onto some third party and every attempt to shift this burden onto someone else should be ridiculed for its thoughtlessness.
This sounds a lot like the argument a lot of irresponsible parents make, trying to get laws passed to make society take over more of the parent's responsibility for educating, raising, and protecting their child. "It was your responsibility to begin with, you're in the best position to DO it, and you're the obvious choice. Why are you fighting this?" (makes up all sorts of wild excuses) Boils down to: You want me to do it for you because you don't want the burden of doing it yourself, and you're looking for someone else to force the responsibility onto. (ie lazy)
We've had that occur in a few places in town last year. They were rebuilding some intersections, and created a significant hump in one way. If the light was green and you didn't slow down, there was a good chance stuff in yout front seat would wind up in your back seat, or vice-versa. And you'd hit your head on the roof. And fully exercise every part of your suspension and shocks. And maybe bottom out or break a strut. It wasn't so much just a spee bunp type up-down, it was a downUUUUPDOWNup that could empty your shirt pocket, sort of like a whip cracking the car.
After about a month, and I presume several suits filed due to vehicle damage, someone came out with a weird big grinder and actually ground down the hump several inches. It's still there, but is considerably shorter. You still want to slow down when you get to it, but it's not an "oops I forgot about that! and slam hard on your brakes" kind of event anymore. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few rear-enders at that light due to that rather than due to an inattentive driver behind a car stopped at the red)
Drivers have enough to keep an eye on when using an intersection, you really don't want to move their focus away from pedestrians and traffic. This gives them tunnel vision with respect only to their own personal vehicle's safety.
not trying to be too petty here, but really, does a problem affecting "hundreds" of web sites in the world really matter that much? That's like a percent of a percent isn't it?
And how does anyone (other than the malware author author) know that nobody has paid them yet?
Final note... "will never work".... they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't making them any money. (not for long anyway, and not more than once) We wouldn't see 99% of the hackery on the internet that we do today (spam, ransomware, phishing, advertisement, scareware, viruses/worms) if they handn't found a way to cash in on their efforts.
not sure how I got that math off but I was in a hurry. I took another look at it and realized the solution was much easier and didn't even require COS. The point where you have line of sight to (tangent with surface of the earth) and from that point to the center of the earth form two lines of a right triangle, with the third being the hypotenuse, which is the distance of the airplane from the center of the earth. (earth radius + airplane height)
WIth the radius of the earth being 3959 miles, and 37,000 ft (at 5280 ft/mile) is 7.007 (lets call it 7) miles, the hypotenuse is 3966. sqrt(3966^2-3959^2) = 236 miles for airplane-to-tangent with earth. (LoS) I guess I was way off with 22!
Note: you can't just measure miles at the surface, as that's not flat, and is a (slightly) lower radius of circule than the elevation of the airplane anyway. My method is looking for straightline distance, since we're talking radio waves, from an airplane at 37k feet, to the earth's surface, along a line from the plane, tangent to the eartth.
As you start getting closer to the tangent point of the line, the distance starts getting very sensitive to height, and the angle of a tangent to a circle of course starts getting very small, so even ocean waves probably eat into it a substantial amount, and certainly to mountains in the mid to far-field.
I genuinely have no clue as to how far they could track a plane on actual radar. They usually go with transponders that upload the plane's info to satellite regularly, and that works anywhere. But radar relies on how close a plane is to a radar facility and how high it's flying. (radar requires at least line-of-sight) You can lose transponder by an electrical fault, the pilot switching it OFF (by pulling a breaker, which IMHO they ought not to have access to) or by some catastrophic event leading to aircraft damage or destruction. Radar on the other hand usually can track debris to a degree after a plane is hit, and would be able to see it stop moving forward, breaking up, and falling. (think about just those engines, they've got a LOT more radar cross-section than a cesna)
So getting out the geometry, I was quite surprised to discover that 37,000 feet gives you a distance of line of sight to almost exactly one degree of the earth. And again marveling at the coincidences of math, that calculates to almost exactly 22 miles. Despite 37,000 feet being way high, it's very small compared to the radius of the earth, which is why it ends up being such a short distance. And this is of course under ideal circumstances of terrain and ground clutter.
To be hones, that's a lot less than I was expecting, and goes a long way to explaining why we don't have radar coverage over the ocean. You could theoretically plant a lot of radar stations on the ground, especially around airports and along high traffic routes, but really the transponders are the best bet in most cases, and the only option over water far off the coast. (I actually remember hearing operators quoting radar coverage out to only 22 miles off the coast during several crash investigations... and now I know why!)
I don't know about French law, but yes, here in the USA by definition a minor cannot consent to just about anything.
I'm assuming this is a question of rights of images taken when the person was a minor, and now is not. I would have expected that the courts would consider pictures taken of a child to be given "unlimited indefinite license for use in the future" if taken while the child was a minor and they were the child's parent. Apparently not?
When a kid turns 18, the parents usually "gift" the child everything they "sort of owned" at that point. The car they bought or helped buy, their clothes, furniture in the bedroom, though really all "personal belongings" to that point are technically the parents' property. If they wanted to be dicks they could kick the kid out into the street with the clothes on his back and go craigslist everything in the bedroom. Even things the kid had "bought with his own money", since at the time the money was technically the parents' property also. They even still have access to savings accounts since all minor's accounts must have a parent as a co-access and could clean it out on the day before your birthday. (or after, I don't know if parental access is automatically recoked at 18?) So I don't see why rights to prior taken photographs aren't considered parental property for purposes of ownership and usage?
If you read the reports, they suspected bing was using google to find stuff their engine couldn't, so they manually entered a search result on google for a long random string that would return one hit basically saying "busted!". They didn't give a desktop computer running any browser a chance to search it, to siphon the data from a user serach result. Then they went to a windows computer running explorer and Bing and did the search for the long random string. Just then google servers recorded a single search query (from an IP address at a MS datacenter) and then sure enough, bing on the windows box "found" it.
you might have forgotten, Bing has been busted for serving up results found from a Google search. (odds are good that if Bing wasn't able to find a high confidence hit on its own it was querying Google to see if it had any better ideas)
Google has run a sting operation that it says proves Bing has been watching what people search for on Google, the sites they select from Googleâ(TM)s results, then uses that information to improve Bingâ(TM)s own search listings. Bing doesnâ(TM)t deny this.
So it might not matter who they search first, they just want to ad revenue and will get it either way.
most computers with a built-in mic use software control to select between audio input sources, based on detecting the presence of that plug in the mic jack. And as with the cameras, that has the possibility of a software override. I have NO problem recording from my built-in mic while i have a mic plugged into my comuter - I just go into sound prefs and switch mics, because the software defaults to external when present.
And that green light that shows your webcam is on, that may also be under software control. Some manufacturers run that light off the power that runs the CCD etc in the camera when it's in use, and others turn it on (or OFF) in software, so it's not necessarily an accurate indication of camera activity.
I agree with that. I have it in my will, "I will retain my privacy, even into death." There are passwords in my will, but not all of them, and it's plainly spelled out that if you don't have a password for it, it's not meant for you. The End.
The bottom line is that if he didn't give you or leave you his password, then that was his choice. Respect it.
"this.. adds functionality... that lets users learn...."
Wow... tl;dr: "This installs advertisements". But why do they even bother trying to be sneaky about their wording? It's not like nobody'd going to notice?
Though I still have a problem with "lets users learn". A button "lets users learn". A banner doesn't "let" me do anything, that's just a commercial.
You should read the law before attempting to apply it.
CVC 21755: "The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety."
("vehicle" applies to any transportation operating on the road, and 21755 is most often applied to bicycles, and bicyclists must be keenly aware of this responsibility for their own safety, but the rule is the same for cars as well)
In other words, the onus of maintaining safety is entirely on the passer. That'd be the guy that almost hit me because he wasn't paying attention. And in the google case, the google car became a passer on the right while attempting to drive around cars to get into position for the right turn. Then merging back into traffic again required the google car to take on the burden of safely merging, which it failed to do. The google car was either passing on the right or exiting and merging back into traffic, depending on how you want to look at it, and either way it was entirely its responsibility to insure safe navigation with existing traffic. (If you're going to try to reply with an argument/exception against the above written law, be sure you cite your source, I'd like to read it)
Slashdot Mirror
how is this any different than say, a modified router? Or a computer acting as a gateway? Is this device just intercepting unencrypted network traffic? Like any point on the internet can?
That would be no more earth-shattering than hearing that someone found a way to read my postal mail.
If you want privacy, you should be using end-to-end network encryption of some sort. Be it VPN, pgp email, ssh, etc. If you're sending in the clear and trusting every member of a huge network of random actors between you and your destination, you're stupid. Once it leaves your computer, it's fair game. It doesn't matter if it's getting sucked up at one of the NSA's big facilities, your ISP, the public kiosk's router, or a random ethernet adapter you found laying on the ground.
While I'm not a fan of the "we need to have a law for everything" mentality, this I could make an exception for. Storage of password in plain or recoverable formay should consitute criminal neglegence. Site operators have NO legitimate need to keep plaintext passwords, and expose users to that risk without warning. Imagine if they did give warning?
Creating new account. Enter username and password below. (note: your password will be stored in plaintext)
hell no?
When the density of the particle is high relative to the hardness of the target, there's a very high chance for penetration and low energy transfer.
But when the projectile density is relatively low compared to the target hardness, the projectle is usually deformed and stops inside the target. Or as in this case, is completely atomized, causing nearly perfect energy transfer. (approaching 100%)
So being able to ignore energy loss in the transfer make the math and modeling pretty easy. You just imagine an explosion at the point of contact, with about double the energy of the projectile. (since explosions are omnidirectional, wasting 50% of their energy in the other direction on impact, and in this case, 100% of the energy is transferred into the target)
And at orbital and escape velocities, delta-V is so high that even a very low M yields a lot of joules.
Final thing to consider, these panels aren't terribly sturdy. They're made to be extremely light, store compactly, and self-deploy/assemble in space, making them overall pretty delicate. This isn't built anything like the solar panel on your roof. It's more like the model car in your dad's display cabinet. Shoot that thing with an airsoft gun and see what happens.
"You found a way to legally avoid paying about $1B of what we would normally collect from you. So we're going to fine you $1B for being so crafty!"
No, that's not going to fly. And I don't care who it is that did it. That's not a practice I want applied to me, so that's not a practice that I want to see applied to anybody else.
fresh out of school:
+ willing to work some to much OT without extra pay
+ will settle for less pay and benefits
+ cheap to replace if necessary
+ unlikely to give a big fight if fired ("easy to fire")
+ little to no lost assets if fired or quits
+ more open to new ideas and changing tech
+ cheaper insurance costs
experienced / old-timers:
+ heavilty trained and experienced at their position. efficient. certified.
+ has learned "the big picture" in operations, understands subtle effects and can head off future problems
+ has valuable and possibly unique organizational knowledge (undocumented information and processes)
+ has formed working relationships with other employees, improved efficiency and communications
+ more reliable attendance
+ less likely to leave suddenly
But the big issue I have with this article is how they act so surprised that a company more frequently ends up replacing someone with another person that's younger. Um, people get old. If you keep replacing your workforce with people of the same or greater age, eventually you're going to be running on a staff of people all hanging around retirement age. You have to get new blood in continuously, it's required for a business to continue. I don't see validity in calling "age descrimination" on hiring. On selective firing, YES, definitely. But not on hiring. I don't agree with the "equal opportunity employer" thing, I believe that a company/owner should be able to decide who they hire. Once you've established the business relationship with them, then some rules need to kick in, to avoid "disposable/throwaway employee" resource issues.
A lot of companies seem to see their HR as a source of funding they can tap into when times get tough, "reducing staffing costs" by canning the seniors and hiring cheap replacements. This rarely works out well for them. They don't need government rules to bring the pain, they bring it to themselves. Radio Shack just got done committing "suicide by seniority-culling". They fired everyone that either was doing well or knew how to run the stores, and replaced them with cheap labor that was inexperienced, idiot, or both. (they did several other stupid things that are OT, but this was one of the "big three" that took them down) And down they went. It's a self-limiting problem. If HP wants to lobotomize their human resources, I say let them. We'll see them bought out under duress after they tank a few years from now by someplace like walmart.
IPv4 = 256^4 = 4.3 billion (4.2x10^9) - check ... 340x10^36 ???
IPv6 = 256^6 =
shouldn't that be 256^6 = 2.8x10^14? That's a MUCH smaller number.
I'd always been under the impression it was the networks that tended to be the "bullies" that were doing the "strong-arming" around the block? I guess life's rough when you're used to being the 400lb gorilla when the 600lb gator enters the scene.
Reminds me of a very dated newspaper cartoon from a long time ago, picture godzilla (labeled "Microsoft") rampaging through a city. He gets surprised by a tap on the shoulder from a much larger godzilla, labelled "AOL". Yeah, that was a long time ago, but you get the idea.
Moral of the story: bullying is OK as long as you're the one DOING the bullying, but quicky becomes NOT cool when you're the one GETTING bullied. I find it very hard to be sympathetic to a bully who just got the tables turned on them. Cry me a river.
when not surrounded by people that want very badly to tell you what you're not allowed to do near them
the editors don't read what the editors don't read.
I have the same question, I know that if I don't unlock my phone with my finger for several days (usually over the weekend) or if it powers down due to exhausted battery. it will require my entering my passcode. Unless they have a way to trick the phone into thinking no time has passed, I don't see what good a fingerpint will do them? The secure enclave will have dumped the fingerprint-tied key by that point and will require the regular passcode.
Sounds like the employee needs firing. They're not being blamed for the bad PR so much as for their screw-up. The boss is just throwing the "get it taken down or you're fired!" as a punishment for not doing his job. Damage control is the first step in the response, "stop the heavy bleeding". Which isn't the security, it's the bad PR. So that's his first job. If he succeeds at that, his second job will be to fix the problem.
If he can't kill the bad PR, he's out immediately, someone else will come in to fix the app and try to fix the PR.
Sorry dude, you were party to making a product that claimed to protect my security but did not. I can't sympathize with you. "I didn't do my job, caused you problems, and now I got caught, please help!" no. Maybe next time you'll take your job a little more seriously and not place thousands of customers needlessly at risk.
Since when did "selling stolen property" become legal???
This sounds a lot like the argument a lot of irresponsible parents make, trying to get laws passed to make society take over more of the parent's responsibility for educating, raising, and protecting their child. "It was your responsibility to begin with, you're in the best position to DO it, and you're the obvious choice. Why are you fighting this?" (makes up all sorts of wild excuses) Boils down to: You want me to do it for you because you don't want the burden of doing it yourself, and you're looking for someone else to force the responsibility onto. (ie lazy)
no, I think what they really want is control over U and I.
Really, does anyone doubt me here?
We've had that occur in a few places in town last year. They were rebuilding some intersections, and created a significant hump in one way. If the light was green and you didn't slow down, there was a good chance stuff in yout front seat would wind up in your back seat, or vice-versa. And you'd hit your head on the roof. And fully exercise every part of your suspension and shocks. And maybe bottom out or break a strut. It wasn't so much just a spee bunp type up-down, it was a downUUUUPDOWNup that could empty your shirt pocket, sort of like a whip cracking the car.
After about a month, and I presume several suits filed due to vehicle damage, someone came out with a weird big grinder and actually ground down the hump several inches. It's still there, but is considerably shorter. You still want to slow down when you get to it, but it's not an "oops I forgot about that! and slam hard on your brakes" kind of event anymore. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few rear-enders at that light due to that rather than due to an inattentive driver behind a car stopped at the red)
Drivers have enough to keep an eye on when using an intersection, you really don't want to move their focus away from pedestrians and traffic. This gives them tunnel vision with respect only to their own personal vehicle's safety.
not trying to be too petty here, but really, does a problem affecting "hundreds" of web sites in the world really matter that much? That's like a percent of a percent isn't it?
And how does anyone (other than the malware author author) know that nobody has paid them yet?
Final note... "will never work".... they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't making them any money. (not for long anyway, and not more than once) We wouldn't see 99% of the hackery on the internet that we do today (spam, ransomware, phishing, advertisement, scareware, viruses/worms) if they handn't found a way to cash in on their efforts.
not sure how I got that math off but I was in a hurry. I took another look at it and realized the solution was much easier and didn't even require COS. The point where you have line of sight to (tangent with surface of the earth) and from that point to the center of the earth form two lines of a right triangle, with the third being the hypotenuse, which is the distance of the airplane from the center of the earth. (earth radius + airplane height)
WIth the radius of the earth being 3959 miles, and 37,000 ft (at 5280 ft/mile) is 7.007 (lets call it 7) miles, the hypotenuse is 3966. sqrt(3966^2-3959^2) = 236 miles for airplane-to-tangent with earth. (LoS) I guess I was way off with 22!
Note: you can't just measure miles at the surface, as that's not flat, and is a (slightly) lower radius of circule than the elevation of the airplane anyway. My method is looking for straightline distance, since we're talking radio waves, from an airplane at 37k feet, to the earth's surface, along a line from the plane, tangent to the eartth.
As you start getting closer to the tangent point of the line, the distance starts getting very sensitive to height, and the angle of a tangent to a circle of course starts getting very small, so even ocean waves probably eat into it a substantial amount, and certainly to mountains in the mid to far-field.
I genuinely have no clue as to how far they could track a plane on actual radar. They usually go with transponders that upload the plane's info to satellite regularly, and that works anywhere. But radar relies on how close a plane is to a radar facility and how high it's flying. (radar requires at least line-of-sight) You can lose transponder by an electrical fault, the pilot switching it OFF (by pulling a breaker, which IMHO they ought not to have access to) or by some catastrophic event leading to aircraft damage or destruction. Radar on the other hand usually can track debris to a degree after a plane is hit, and would be able to see it stop moving forward, breaking up, and falling. (think about just those engines, they've got a LOT more radar cross-section than a cesna)
So getting out the geometry, I was quite surprised to discover that 37,000 feet gives you a distance of line of sight to almost exactly one degree of the earth. And again marveling at the coincidences of math, that calculates to almost exactly 22 miles. Despite 37,000 feet being way high, it's very small compared to the radius of the earth, which is why it ends up being such a short distance. And this is of course under ideal circumstances of terrain and ground clutter.
To be hones, that's a lot less than I was expecting, and goes a long way to explaining why we don't have radar coverage over the ocean. You could theoretically plant a lot of radar stations on the ground, especially around airports and along high traffic routes, but really the transponders are the best bet in most cases, and the only option over water far off the coast. (I actually remember hearing operators quoting radar coverage out to only 22 miles off the coast during several crash investigations... and now I know why!)
I'm assuming this is a question of rights of images taken when the person was a minor, and now is not. I would have expected that the courts would consider pictures taken of a child to be given "unlimited indefinite license for use in the future" if taken while the child was a minor and they were the child's parent. Apparently not?
When a kid turns 18, the parents usually "gift" the child everything they "sort of owned" at that point. The car they bought or helped buy, their clothes, furniture in the bedroom, though really all "personal belongings" to that point are technically the parents' property. If they wanted to be dicks they could kick the kid out into the street with the clothes on his back and go craigslist everything in the bedroom. Even things the kid had "bought with his own money", since at the time the money was technically the parents' property also. They even still have access to savings accounts since all minor's accounts must have a parent as a co-access and could clean it out on the day before your birthday. (or after, I don't know if parental access is automatically recoked at 18?) So I don't see why rights to prior taken photographs aren't considered parental property for purposes of ownership and usage?
If you read the reports, they suspected bing was using google to find stuff their engine couldn't, so they manually entered a search result on google for a long random string that would return one hit basically saying "busted!". They didn't give a desktop computer running any browser a chance to search it, to siphon the data from a user serach result. Then they went to a windows computer running explorer and Bing and did the search for the long random string. Just then google servers recorded a single search query (from an IP address at a MS datacenter) and then sure enough, bing on the windows box "found" it.
That's about as busted as busted can get.
you might have forgotten, Bing has been busted for serving up results found from a Google search. (odds are good that if Bing wasn't able to find a high confidence hit on its own it was querying Google to see if it had any better ideas)
http://searchengineland.com/go...
So it might not matter who they search first, they just want to ad revenue and will get it either way.
most computers with a built-in mic use software control to select between audio input sources, based on detecting the presence of that plug in the mic jack. And as with the cameras, that has the possibility of a software override. I have NO problem recording from my built-in mic while i have a mic plugged into my comuter - I just go into sound prefs and switch mics, because the software defaults to external when present.
And that green light that shows your webcam is on, that may also be under software control. Some manufacturers run that light off the power that runs the CCD etc in the camera when it's in use, and others turn it on (or OFF) in software, so it's not necessarily an accurate indication of camera activity.
I agree with that. I have it in my will, "I will retain my privacy, even into death." There are passwords in my will, but not all of them, and it's plainly spelled out that if you don't have a password for it, it's not meant for you. The End.
The bottom line is that if he didn't give you or leave you his password, then that was his choice. Respect it.
"this.. adds functionality... that lets users learn...."
Wow... tl;dr: "This installs advertisements". But why do they even bother trying to be sneaky about their wording? It's not like nobody'd going to notice?
Though I still have a problem with "lets users learn". A button "lets users learn". A banner doesn't "let" me do anything, that's just a commercial.
You should read the law before attempting to apply it.
CVC 21755: "The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting that movement in safety."
("vehicle" applies to any transportation operating on the road, and 21755 is most often applied to bicycles, and bicyclists must be keenly aware of this responsibility for their own safety, but the rule is the same for cars as well)
In other words, the onus of maintaining safety is entirely on the passer. That'd be the guy that almost hit me because he wasn't paying attention. And in the google case, the google car became a passer on the right while attempting to drive around cars to get into position for the right turn. Then merging back into traffic again required the google car to take on the burden of safely merging, which it failed to do. The google car was either passing on the right or exiting and merging back into traffic, depending on how you want to look at it, and either way it was entirely its responsibility to insure safe navigation with existing traffic. (If you're going to try to reply with an argument/exception against the above written law, be sure you cite your source, I'd like to read it)