It's not quite the same thing. Disclosing that the fine is from the NSA is not incriminating. It ITSELF is the crime. In your example, revealing your source of income is not a crime. Rather it would reveal a previously committed crime. So I'm not sure that failing to reveal financial information in line with public company laws falls under the heading of not incriminating yourself, because your having paid government fines is not a crime, so you can't incriminate yourself in that way.
You could just as much argue the opposite way. Revealing financial information about public companies is required under the law. Free speech is allowed under the constitution. Therefore, the NSA can get fucked with their secrecy orders. You're still left with one legal principle against another.
It would have been nice to see them try that, but realistically, it would be in contempt of court to just say, it's ok we'll pay the fine, so go away. The executive would end up in jail, and someone would be appointed to tow the line. Nothing would have changed in the end.
It's a legitimate question though.... If Yahoo had held out and paid the fine, what do they say on the next financial conference call to Wall street about where the money is going? Do they say they are being fined by an unspecified government agency that they cannot specify for reasons they are not allowed to state? Are they allowed to say that? Are they allowed to NOT say where it is going under public company financial disclosure laws? Me thinks these laws would come head to head.
So to ask a stupid question... since Android contains Chrome, and now Chrome contains Android, why are they different, and/or why do they need to be different?
You're going to blame Apple because your Mandarin isn't up to scratch? Such a pedant. If you'd gone to iTunesU, I'm sure you could have quickly downloaded a course on it.
It's counter-intuitive that a low-density substance would conduct heat well. It seems the opposite with solids, where low density substances are good insulators.
Well.... to be a genuine issue it would have to be statically linked, otherwise you would do the obvious and just distribute them separately. So is that what's happening here? I doubt it, since the original server is presumably unmodifiable.
It would only take bandwidth if it crossed the divide between ATT and the customer, and then was lost. But if there are packets getting lost at that point, one would presume an equal number would be lost going outwards, in which case the customer would record them sent, but ATT would not. In other words, any packet loss should be a net nil.
I don't buy it. A petrol station might have an irreducible overhead of evaporation in storage, but the point is when I fill up one litre or one gallon, that's how much I expect to get. If there is irreducible overhead, that's their problem.
I can picture a scenario that if they were encrypted, the recovery key would be lost, or the person holding it would die or resign or quit and suddenly all the backups are unrecoverable. You can say ok, so the key should be kept somewhere secure, but where? When you answer that question, then why not put the actual backups there? It's not like you could have just one key forever either. That would be insecure to never change it. But to change it means having some filing system to keep the whole list of them from years and years back and storing them so people can find them. Then how are you going to encrypt THAT?
Was the glibc boffin who said it looked unexpoitable just expressing a casual opinion, or was he actually trying to wriggle out of fixing it? If the former, then its not very interesting. If the latter, then yeah it's a problem.
Perhaps, but its hard to see how linking it to a hardware ID is especially secure. A hardware ID is probably just a sequential number, whereas a proper security token would be an encryption key.
Anti-neutrality laws are marxist in the same way that anti-monopoly laws are marxist. But thinking people recognise that you have to restrain rampant capitalism sometimes in order to maintain correct competition and market relationships.
How would you hardwire it anyway? I highly doubt the iPod hardware is modified. So that means there is some kind of security token on the iPod. But the iTunes/iCloud backup should backup any application data. This should be secure AND allow recovery in the case of loss.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not quite the same thing. Disclosing that the fine is from the NSA is not incriminating. It ITSELF is the crime. In your example, revealing your source of income is not a crime. Rather it would reveal a previously committed crime. So I'm not sure that failing to reveal financial information in line with public company laws falls under the heading of not incriminating yourself, because your having paid government fines is not a crime, so you can't incriminate yourself in that way.
You could just as much argue the opposite way. Revealing financial information about public companies is required under the law. Free speech is allowed under the constitution. Therefore, the NSA can get fucked with their secrecy orders. You're still left with one legal principle against another.
It would have been nice to see them try that, but realistically, it would be in contempt of court to just say, it's ok we'll pay the fine, so go away. The executive would end up in jail, and someone would be appointed to tow the line. Nothing would have changed in the end.
I agree it's a problem, but what's the alternative? Politicising the judiciary with elections has problems too.
It's a legitimate question though.... If Yahoo had held out and paid the fine, what do they say on the next financial conference call to Wall street about where the money is going? Do they say they are being fined by an unspecified government agency that they cannot specify for reasons they are not allowed to state? Are they allowed to say that? Are they allowed to NOT say where it is going under public company financial disclosure laws? Me thinks these laws would come head to head.
So to ask a stupid question... since Android contains Chrome, and now Chrome contains Android, why are they different, and/or why do they need to be different?
Oh the irony. The NSA are dishonest from the leader on down.
If you're a leftie, you're holding it wrong.
Lefties should have their knuckles smacked until they repent.
It's splash proof. i.e. it can withstand casual exposure to water.
Battery life: I think there was some mention of charging it overnight, so you can assume I think 1 day of battery.
You're going to blame Apple because your Mandarin isn't up to scratch? Such a pedant. If you'd gone to iTunesU, I'm sure you could have quickly downloaded a course on it.
I didn't hear Apple say explicitly that they are not somewhere getting their whiskers wet.
It's counter-intuitive that a low-density substance would conduct heat well. It seems the opposite with solids, where low density substances are good insulators.
Well.... to be a genuine issue it would have to be statically linked, otherwise you would do the obvious and just distribute them separately. So is that what's happening here? I doubt it, since the original server is presumably unmodifiable.
It would only take bandwidth if it crossed the divide between ATT and the customer, and then was lost. But if there are packets getting lost at that point, one would presume an equal number would be lost going outwards, in which case the customer would record them sent, but ATT would not. In other words, any packet loss should be a net nil.
Yes, the whole point of sending folks into the space station is to do experiments in microgravity. Otherwise, might as well stay home and watch TV.
Here's what you should do: nothing at all. Life is too short and there are better battles to fight.
Or at least, losses incoming and outgoing should cancel each other.
Errm, if any packets get lost that should *REDUCE* his billing, not increase it.
I don't buy it. A petrol station might have an irreducible overhead of evaporation in storage, but the point is when I fill up one litre or one gallon, that's how much I expect to get. If there is irreducible overhead, that's their problem.
I can picture a scenario that if they were encrypted, the recovery key would be lost, or the person holding it would die or resign or quit and suddenly all the backups are unrecoverable. You can say ok, so the key should be kept somewhere secure, but where? When you answer that question, then why not put the actual backups there? It's not like you could have just one key forever either. That would be insecure to never change it. But to change it means having some filing system to keep the whole list of them from years and years back and storing them so people can find them. Then how are you going to encrypt THAT?
Was the glibc boffin who said it looked unexpoitable just expressing a casual opinion, or was he actually trying to wriggle out of fixing it? If the former, then its not very interesting. If the latter, then yeah it's a problem.
I suppose, but if your data is only small, a good OS will probably put it all together at the beginning of the drive anyway.
Plus, OSes perform better when they have got a lot of space to work with. So not all usage scenarios would improve.
Perhaps, but its hard to see how linking it to a hardware ID is especially secure. A hardware ID is probably just a sequential number, whereas a proper security token would be an encryption key.
Anti-neutrality laws are marxist in the same way that anti-monopoly laws are marxist. But thinking people recognise that you have to restrain rampant capitalism sometimes in order to maintain correct competition and market relationships.
How would you hardwire it anyway? I highly doubt the iPod hardware is modified. So that means there is some kind of security token on the iPod. But the iTunes/iCloud backup should backup any application data. This should be secure AND allow recovery in the case of loss.