You mean like a laptop? And before you say something about, "You can work with the laptop plugged in!", remember you can do the exact same with a tablet.
Yes, but with an iPad (just like with the locked down iPhone), expect to pay an outrageous price to Apple for changing the battery (or expect the Apple battery to be no longer offered by Apple), so when the time comes, it will probably be cheaper to just buy a new entire iPad for yourself.
the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities.
You seem to be already convinced child porn was indeed posted and remained on Reddit. Is that really true? Posting a suggestive mainstream picture of Britney Spears when she was seventeen years old, and calling her jailbait, or calling the picture itself child porn, is a criticism of the media establishment itself (or an indictment of the hypocrisy of our times). It's not an indictment that Reddit is trading in Child Porn itself, on the contrary.
If the pictures had really been child porn, the FBI would have been contacted and a very specific process would have been followed. If anything, those pictures were posted and tagged that way because they escaped the official classification of child porn, and yet, some people felt that they were wrong to have even been taken and productized in the first place.
And making all the geeks to be like Richard Stallman is sheer nonsense. By that logic, all republicans must love to have sex with underaged boys because Mark Folley loved underaged boys. And all married republicans, the males anyway, must want open marriages because Newt Gingrich wanted one. If you think about it, the republican party is patriarchal, so it makes complete sense for its male elders to think they're entitled to anything and everything they want. And of course, let's not forget Bill Clinton, an inspiration to all the male democrats, who thought that having sexual relations only meant sexual intercourse (and everything else must be free game and ok with a subordinate if you just label it something else).
And you Bonch, if you want to make a difference, a real difference, go after the places that originally published those pictures in the first place. Right now, you're doing the opposite of Richard Stallman, which in my opinion is just as crazy. You're indicting Reddit for something you call "child porn", and yet, you're censoring the debate by refusing to acknowledge the real producers of that very specific "child porn": the magazines, the parents, the photographers, and the mainstream media that purposefully produced and productized that borderline child pornography in the first place (not to mention the unsupervised teenagers that posted their own suggestive pictures online to productize themselves and/or to attract attention).
...they would have access to anything the victim would have access to, such as addresses, birthdays, e-mail, phone and credit cards. They could even book a flight in the victims name.
If this is really true (I don't know if it is, I don't have a Southwest account), he should really get their PCI certification revoked. Once Southwest is barred from processing credit cards, I can bet you they'll turn off that mobile login feature in 30 minutes flat (patch or no patch).
Here is the comment from Liz for anyone else wondering where it was: (by the way, BOM means Bill of Materials)
Ha – no, that was something else entirely. Wired asked us to give them a copy of our BOM. We told them we couldn’t do that because it’d land us in hot water with our suppliers (particularly Hynix and Broadcom); if their other customers were to use our BOM to demand similar pricing, we’d be in trouble. So instead, they *made up* a BOM (which was gratuitously wrong). They told us they were doing this, and we asked them not to; saying we’d be happier for no article to appear at all. They published it anyway. Our suppliers started getting calls from their other customers, as predicted; we had a lot of apologising to do.
Slightly less serious, but still damned annoying: Wired also demanded pictures of a cased version of the final board. This was well before Christmas, at which point we didn’t *have* any beta or final boards, still less any cased ones (the cases are being finished after the board themselves are finished at the end of this month). They didn’t take no for an answer, and kept asking, and asking, and askingand then photoshopped a case onto an alpha board (wrong size, wrong proportions) for their magazine. Which is misleading, but it’s nothing like as damaging as their efforts with the BOM were.
Needless to say, they’re off the list for press samples, and they’re not getting any more interviews either (they ran Rob ragged in preparation for this, then never used any of the material they’d got from him). Wired seem to believe they’re still as relevant as they were in 1998. Luckily for us, they’re not; we’ve interacted with hundreds of journalists over the last six months or so, and not a single one of them has been as hard to work with as Wired were.
Any reasonable employer will write you an exclusion, but likely with a no-compete clause, which is fair enough.
IANAL, but I write the above as an employer, running a tech team of 21.
A problem with some "reasonable" employers is that so many of them really have *unreasonable* contracts to begin with. Please take a look at his request a little more closely.
From his wording: "Ideally I'd keep my day job, reserving mornings, evenings and weekends to see if the side-projects could become viable". So I assume that he would intend to leave his current employer if one of his side-projects becomes viable enough (and even if he never intends to leave the company even if he's successful with his side-projects, that would be difficult for him to prove otherwise anyhow).
As an employer yourself, would you be willing to sign-off on that if that meant you might eventually lose him as a result? Actually, don't answer that. Even if you agree to that, because you're a reasonable manager, a better question would be, do you think your HR department and legal in-house counsel (assuming your company is big enough to have those) would agree to something like that with an existing employee (when unlike you, they don't have a relationship with the employee in question, they probably don't even know him all that well, except for the fact that he's probably a valuable employee and that it may cost the company money down the road if they were to agree to such an exclusion)??
Some might, especially if as manager you'd be willing push the issue, and if as manager you have a particularly good relationship with HR and legal, but personally, I think that many employers (especially most employers that have such unreasonable contracts to begin with) probably wouldn't.
The GoDaddy CEO publicly supports waterboarding GoDaddy already has an history of shutting down domains without requiring to see a court order GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers And during the SOPA exodus, which is still going on, it's been dragging its feet on domain transfers (a violation of ICANN rules and regulations). Hopefully, they'll have their domain name registry privileges taken away by ICANN because of that last one.
Their wallet, checkout, or whatever really does suck. Not just because of security, but because of serious difficulty to setup and use, lack of features, and essentially no help from google.
I have used google wallet, and I have used paypal. Paypal is *far* superior.
No, you haven't used Google Wallet. You've used Google Checkout. Those two are not the same (not yet anyway).
Google Wallet is an NFC-enabled application (NFC means Near Field Communication). It allows you to tap your phone and pay at the check out counter at a few chain stores. Google Wallet currently requires an Android NFC phone (which represents less than 2% of the install base of Android devices in the US).
Thus far in the US, only the Nexus S, the Galaxy Nexus, and the HTC Amaze support NFC, but it won't work on AT&T and Verizon since they're blocking it because they'll have their own competing NFC wallet coming out this year (technically, T-Mobile is also part of that ISIS group with the competing product, but T-Mobile hasn't disabled/removed GoogleWallet yet, and I'm not sure if it will ever do). The same goes for the Blackberry Bold and the other Blackberry NFC phones that RIM was hoping it could use it for launching its own NFC-enabled payment platform, but worse, because on those phones, AT&T and Verizon have disabled the entire NFC stack as per my understanding, not just the app that does payment with NFC (please someone correct me if I'm wrong on that one, I'm not up-to-date on the latest Blackberry/RIM news right now).
Block bullshit sites like facebook, myspace and pals too. That's just good sense.
A white list would be much better than a black list. If he black lists web sites, students are bound to find sites/domains/ip addresses that are not included in his list.
The question doesn't even say if he's a developer or a user. Or whether he's really serious about finding a new job, or whether he's just venting about his current employer.
If he's an open source developer, he shouldn't just look passively on dice.com or monster.com. That's one advantage of being an open source developer, you're generally more easily identifiable and accessible to potential employers if they browse through your code contributions and try to track you down through that (and if you're worried about your current employer finding out about your current open source activity, just make up an internet online persona for yourself and write code on the weekends through that). Usually, developers of proprietary software are purposefully hidden away from view by their employers (for fear that they'll be recruited away), so if those guys do not know anyone else -- those are the guys that are forced to go through sites like dice.com or monster.com.
And similar advice goes if you don't have much open source code out there to begin with. If you don't have much code out there, the second best thing is put yourself out there at least socially and become an active part of the social fabric of the programming community you want to specialize in.
It's often the case that the best developer jobs, and by best -- I mean some of the entry level developer jobs that all the newbies want, or the most lucrative/coolest jobs -- if you happen to be a veteran, often get filled long before they're even advertised (or long before they're even given out to third party recruiters to recruit for). So if you don't want to see yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel after everyone has already taken a drink from it, you'll have to get to it before those jobs get to third party recruiters (or sites like dice.com) because by then -- all those good jobs may already be gone.
not for political reasons. Most schools or universities will filter Internet content, this is nothing new, and usually it's for security reasons. I would like to know if their Content Filter picked up “change.org” by accident, or was it intentional.
This is regarding a petition against ASU fee hikes, that ASU itself claims was being spammed to their students through email. So the filtering was clearly intentional. But ASU didn't just filter the email messages containing the link to the petition, or the email headers related to the alleged spam, which would have been easy to do with spam administrative tools, the school chose to go above and beyond that by filtering the entire domain name from being accessible by the student's browsers.
This extra step only helped ensure that even the students who tried accessing the web site from other sources couldn't even access the site as well.
Now imagine if ASU tried using the same excuse for the next election and decided to filter out a democratic web site (or filter out a republican web site) because of some supposed spam one party was sending out. What do you think would happen to them as a State-sponsored public University? Yes, that's right. They'd lose State funding, or someone would be made the scapegoat and they'd be made to resign.
After all, it's dead easy to impersonate a web site and send spam on its behalf. And if admins really did filter on links alone, spammers would be taking advantage of that as a way to get their competitor's sites banned.
I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done though, since the Internet on campus is a privilege. It's no different than a Cyber Cafe, or Motel blocking access to some websites, it's their decision how they want to control their Internet.
Congratulations! Your University did a great job educating you about your rights.
This isn't Stanford or some other private institution, this is a publicly funded institution that is using our tax dollars. And it's just not blocking porn or Facebook, and it's not blocking all web sites equally, it's selectively blocking political speech that the institution is disagreeing with.
And _public_ institutions are barred from doing that kind of thing.
Apple supposedly purchase the trademark in 2009 from Proview, but it appears that they may have bought it from their Taiwanese counterparts, which the Chinese portion is using to its advantage. China being China, they are choosing to side with the Chinese-based business.
That's funny. Apple being Apple, it did the same thing with the iPhone trademark. Apple started using that trademark before they could secure all the rights to it from Cisco (who had secured the iPhone trademark three years before Apple for the much less successful "internet phone" Cisco was planning to sell).
If China awards the company anything remotely close to $1 billion, then I hope Apple pulls out of China. Wishful thinking as it is, it would be interesting to watch. I also hope all such companies fail, but that's pretty obvious.
I wouldn't worry. Apple didn't pull out of California when it found out it had to pay Cisco for the trademark.
So I doubt they'd pull out of China for the same reason.
GPS, Siri, and Bluetooth are power hungry too. And yet, it doesn't mean that you need to be using them all the time.
For me, 3G or wifi is usually good enough for what I do 95% of the time, but it's really when I need that extra speed/bandwidth that 4G has become a life saver.
Is the 4g tech itself power hungry? Mine seems to have battery trouble even when I'm stationery and the 4g signal is strong.
The same for my Evo 4G, but I'm told the latest 4G models at CES consume less power and also run less hot on 4G. For me, I have 4G turned off almost all the time, and it's really only when I need 4G speed that I turn it on (which happens only once every couple of days).
For most things like Google Navigation, downloading regular-sized apps, listening to streaming podcasts, doing email, and browsing the web, 3G is usually ok enough. It's really for watching movies at high resolution, doing video chat, downloading the latest 350 MB game, or sharing my phone as a hot spot with my friends that I prefer to turn on 4G (I'll even choose 4G over my home wifi since the 4G speeds I'm getting are much faster than my home DSL).
In your case, if you really do need 4G to be turned on all the time, you should really consider investing in an extended battery.
False. To start with, the blackberry platform has been audited, tested & certified by NATO & many governments that are not part of Echelon, such as Austria & Turkey:
Here is a citation for France. And here is a citation for Germany doing the same. And even Sweden and the EU issued the same warnings (although perhaps this was done just informally, as I can't seem to find the citations for those).
You made two exaggerations in your response. You shouldn't have said "many governments that are not part of Echelon". You should have said "_two_ governments that are not part of Echelon". Two governments doesn't make "many".
Also assuming Turkey and Austria were not coerced/pressured by the US/UK/Anglo coalition in their audits (an assumption I'm not willing to concede yet, because I've seen such coercions take place), it's not the "blackberry platform" which was audited by those "many" non-Echelon governments, it's just the "Blackberry Enterprise Solution" that was. This distinction is important because it's also common wisdom among high level people to keep two different phones, one for Enterprise use and one for personal use.
A European non-UK blackberry phone for personal use would not be going through company servers, but it would be going through the private BBM network in the UK (there is no way to opt out of that as per my understanding) and it would only give the user a false sense of security about being able to share personal sensitive information through it (when all of its text transmissions were indexed and analyzed through the Echelon program).
There are many governments that have threatened to ban blackberries, but none have threatened to ban iphone/android. Think about it.
"The German ministry was first advised to avoid using BlackBerry and iPhone devices in November 2009" (emphasis mine). Think about what? Your logic is flawed. Like you said yourself, some countries like the UA Emirates were upset because they couldn't view the traffic, but nothing of that means that RIM doesn't share its de-encrypted data with the Echelon program (and the country RIM originally originated from, Canada, which is indeed part of that Echelon program).
For example, given the volume of text messages, a mobile carrier in Hungary would notice if millions of messages are being routed outside the country instead of directly to their destination down the hall.
Yes, I do work and talk with some of those people. This is _my_ industry. And this is what some of those people have told me. The fact that I could back up my claims with articles from places like the BBC was sheer googling luck on my part.
And if you want to keep something secret, sending it in an unencrypted text message is a bad idea.
If you want to keep something secret, sending it as a message to anyone is a bad idea. But putting general platitudes aside, there is only one thing worse than using a knowingly unsecure communication channel, and that's the idea that you might be using an unsecure channel unknowingly (because then you'd be mislead and you simply wouldn't know to keep your mouth shut because of that false sense of security).
After all, it wouldn't take much to compromise high level people in an international negotiation. All you'd need to know is that one or two of the negotiators had used their personal Blackberry device to commit fraud, commit insider trading, or to coordinate a hot affair with their bosse's wife.
He said "exploser" which is French for "explode", which he interprets as "succeed" or "blow them away". I am originally from France and I can't say I'm familiar with that specific wording, but that's how I would interpret it myself if I ever received such a message from a co-worker (unless of course I was a terrorist, in which case context means everything).
Indeed -- but misinterpreted by whom? His colleagues, or by someone who was spying on his text messages?
This was a private text message directed _at_ his co-workers who were at a trade-show abroad. If that message had really been about a real bomb, it would imply that anyone it was directed at would have been an accomplice. Also, I doubt the authorities would have waited until the co-workers came back through border control to interrogate them if the complaints had really come from the co-workers themselves.
And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
My bet would be that they were using Blackberry's private BBMs network. In Europe (except for the UK), government officials and high ranking businessmen are told not to use Blackberries, because all the traffic is said to be shared de-encrypted with the US/UK/Canadian/New Zealand/Australian intelligence's echelon program as part of their anglo-security intelligence sharing pact. It is said that even if you're sending a text or an email to an office worker just standing in an office down the hall from you, it doesn't matter where you are in Europe, and even if you're not in the UK, the text or email will first go through the UK so that it can first be indexed and analyzed by the echelon program before it can make its way back to your country and be delivered to your co-worker.
...and he was picked up three days later. That is an incredibly fast turnaround for law enforcement, even for the US or Canada.
but if you think about it, "three days later" is kind of useless for an SMS that is supposed to trigger an explosion. One would think less than 3 minutes (or less than 3 hours) would be a better time frame for executing that kind of order.
3. WHY did they go after his co-workers?
The text was directed at his co-workers. Since he told them to "exploser", and they didn't, the authorities probably thought that they were having second thoughts, or that they were incompetent terrorists (just like the shoe-bomber was). And if you've ever watched 24, everybody knows you interrogate the weakest terrorists first.
You could, but do you? I haven't seen any evidence that countries with socialized medicine, on the whole, put any more restrictions on people's health habits than those without.
If anything, it would seem the US is trying to overcompensate for its lack of socialized medicine, by over doing it on its war on cigarettes, on its war on drugs, and on its war on good food (by enriching it with all kinds of vitamins and other junk).
Health Insurance Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on dna information. I believe that bill was signed by W Bush.
Thought, this law doesn't protect against this type of discrimination for Life Insurance. Life Insurance is a little bit more tricky than Health Insurance, because if insurance companies are told not to discriminate on dna for Life Insurance, then people who have deadly genes will play the odds and load up on as much Life Insurance as they can just before their number comes up.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like a laptop? And before you say something about, "You can work with the laptop plugged in!", remember you can do the exact same with a tablet.
Yes, but with an iPad (just like with the locked down iPhone), expect to pay an outrageous price to Apple for changing the battery (or expect the Apple battery to be no longer offered by Apple), so when the time comes, it will probably be cheaper to just buy a new entire iPad for yourself.
the Reddit admins' bizarre six-year acceptance of child porn on its site is reflective of an overall lax attitude in online geek communities.
You seem to be already convinced child porn was indeed posted and remained on Reddit. Is that really true? Posting a suggestive mainstream picture of Britney Spears when she was seventeen years old, and calling her jailbait, or calling the picture itself child porn, is a criticism of the media establishment itself (or an indictment of the hypocrisy of our times). It's not an indictment that Reddit is trading in Child Porn itself, on the contrary.
If the pictures had really been child porn, the FBI would have been contacted and a very specific process would have been followed. If anything, those pictures were posted and tagged that way because they escaped the official classification of child porn, and yet, some people felt that they were wrong to have even been taken and productized in the first place.
And making all the geeks to be like Richard Stallman is sheer nonsense. By that logic, all republicans must love to have sex with underaged boys because Mark Folley loved underaged boys. And all married republicans, the males anyway, must want open marriages because Newt Gingrich wanted one. If you think about it, the republican party is patriarchal, so it makes complete sense for its male elders to think they're entitled to anything and everything they want. And of course, let's not forget Bill Clinton, an inspiration to all the male democrats, who thought that having sexual relations only meant sexual intercourse (and everything else must be free game and ok with a subordinate if you just label it something else).
And you Bonch, if you want to make a difference, a real difference, go after the places that originally published those pictures in the first place. Right now, you're doing the opposite of Richard Stallman, which in my opinion is just as crazy. You're indicting Reddit for something you call "child porn", and yet, you're censoring the debate by refusing to acknowledge the real producers of that very specific "child porn": the magazines, the parents, the photographers, and the mainstream media that purposefully produced and productized that borderline child pornography in the first place (not to mention the unsupervised teenagers that posted their own suggestive pictures online to productize themselves and/or to attract attention).
...they would have access to anything the victim would have access to, such as addresses, birthdays, e-mail, phone and credit cards. They could even book a flight in the victims name.
If this is really true (I don't know if it is, I don't have a Southwest account), he should really get their PCI certification revoked. Once Southwest is barred from processing credit cards, I can bet you they'll turn off that mobile login feature in 30 minutes flat (patch or no patch).
Here is the comment from Liz for anyone else wondering where it was:
(by the way, BOM means Bill of Materials)
Ha – no, that was something else entirely. Wired asked us to give them a copy of our BOM. We told them we couldn’t do that because it’d land us in hot water with our suppliers (particularly Hynix and Broadcom); if their other customers were to use our BOM to demand similar pricing, we’d be in trouble. So instead, they *made up* a BOM (which was gratuitously wrong). They told us they were doing this, and we asked them not to; saying we’d be happier for no article to appear at all. They published it anyway. Our suppliers started getting calls from their other customers, as predicted; we had a lot of apologising to do.
Slightly less serious, but still damned annoying: Wired also demanded pictures of a cased version of the final board. This was well before Christmas, at which point we didn’t *have* any beta or final boards, still less any cased ones (the cases are being finished after the board themselves are finished at the end of this month). They didn’t take no for an answer, and kept asking, and asking, and askingand then photoshopped a case onto an alpha board (wrong size, wrong proportions) for their magazine. Which is misleading, but it’s nothing like as damaging as their efforts with the BOM were.
Needless to say, they’re off the list for press samples, and they’re not getting any more interviews either (they ran Rob ragged in preparation for this, then never used any of the material they’d got from him). Wired seem to believe they’re still as relevant as they were in 1998. Luckily for us, they’re not; we’ve interacted with hundreds of journalists over the last six months or so, and not a single one of them has been as hard to work with as Wired were.
Any reasonable employer will write you an exclusion, but likely with a no-compete clause, which is fair enough.
IANAL, but I write the above as an employer, running a tech team of 21.
A problem with some "reasonable" employers is that so many of them really have *unreasonable* contracts to begin with. Please take a look at his request a little more closely.
From his wording: "Ideally I'd keep my day job, reserving mornings, evenings and weekends to see if the side-projects could become viable". So I assume that he would intend to leave his current employer if one of his side-projects becomes viable enough (and even if he never intends to leave the company even if he's successful with his side-projects, that would be difficult for him to prove otherwise anyhow).
As an employer yourself, would you be willing to sign-off on that if that meant you might eventually lose him as a result? Actually, don't answer that. Even if you agree to that, because you're a reasonable manager, a better question would be, do you think your HR department and legal in-house counsel (assuming your company is big enough to have those) would agree to something like that with an existing employee (when unlike you, they don't have a relationship with the employee in question, they probably don't even know him all that well, except for the fact that he's probably a valuable employee and that it may cost the company money down the road if they were to agree to such an exclusion)??
Some might, especially if as manager you'd be willing push the issue, and if as manager you have a particularly good relationship with HR and legal, but personally, I think that many employers (especially most employers that have such unreasonable contracts to begin with) probably wouldn't.
Your approach sounds like too much work.
I'd suggest instead edible rfid tags with a scanner affixed to your toilet bowl.
The job of a tester is to put together a meaningful plan...
...and then not use it.
http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2011/09/10-minute-test-plan.html
and don't forget also:
The GoDaddy CEO publicly supports waterboarding
GoDaddy already has an history of shutting down domains without requiring to see a court order
GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers
And during the SOPA exodus, which is still going on, it's been dragging its feet on domain transfers (a violation of ICANN rules and regulations).
Hopefully, they'll have their domain name registry privileges taken away by ICANN because of that last one.
Their wallet, checkout, or whatever really does suck. Not just because of security, but because of serious difficulty to setup and use, lack of features, and essentially no help from google.
I have used google wallet, and I have used paypal. Paypal is *far* superior.
No, you haven't used Google Wallet. You've used Google Checkout. Those two are not the same (not yet anyway).
Google Wallet is an NFC-enabled application (NFC means Near Field Communication). It allows you to tap your phone and pay at the check out counter at a few chain stores. Google Wallet currently requires an Android NFC phone (which represents less than 2% of the install base of Android devices in the US).
Thus far in the US, only the Nexus S, the Galaxy Nexus, and the HTC Amaze support NFC, but it won't work on AT&T and Verizon since they're blocking it because they'll have their own competing NFC wallet coming out this year (technically, T-Mobile is also part of that ISIS group with the competing product, but T-Mobile hasn't disabled/removed GoogleWallet yet, and I'm not sure if it will ever do). The same goes for the Blackberry Bold and the other Blackberry NFC phones that RIM was hoping it could use it for launching its own NFC-enabled payment platform, but worse, because on those phones, AT&T and Verizon have disabled the entire NFC stack as per my understanding, not just the app that does payment with NFC (please someone correct me if I'm wrong on that one, I'm not up-to-date on the latest Blackberry/RIM news right now).
We'll get any meaningful answers if all we have are rumors and unsubstantiated aspersions!
Fine, take a look at this article from Reuters with lots of direct attributions.
Dns filter a blacklist of known cheating sites.
Block bullshit sites like facebook, myspace and pals too. That's just good sense.
A white list would be much better than a black list. If he black lists web sites, students are bound to find sites/domains/ip addresses that are not included in his list.
That's dangerous. Why do better if you're going to be taking heat for it anyway ?
Bribing an activist with an iPhone 4, or beating up a worker to control the news, is hardly what I'd call "do[ing] better".
The question doesn't even say if he's a developer or a user. Or whether he's really serious about finding a new job, or whether he's just venting about his current employer.
If he's an open source developer, he shouldn't just look passively on dice.com or monster.com. That's one advantage of being an open source developer, you're generally more easily identifiable and accessible to potential employers if they browse through your code contributions and try to track you down through that (and if you're worried about your current employer finding out about your current open source activity, just make up an internet online persona for yourself and write code on the weekends through that). Usually, developers of proprietary software are purposefully hidden away from view by their employers (for fear that they'll be recruited away), so if those guys do not know anyone else -- those are the guys that are forced to go through sites like dice.com or monster.com.
And similar advice goes if you don't have much open source code out there to begin with. If you don't have much code out there, the second best thing is put yourself out there at least socially and become an active part of the social fabric of the programming community you want to specialize in.
It's often the case that the best developer jobs, and by best -- I mean some of the entry level developer jobs that all the newbies want, or the most lucrative/coolest jobs -- if you happen to be a veteran, often get filled long before they're even advertised (or long before they're even given out to third party recruiters to recruit for). So if you don't want to see yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel after everyone has already taken a drink from it, you'll have to get to it before those jobs get to third party recruiters (or sites like dice.com) because by then -- all those good jobs may already be gone.
And that's it, in just one bill.
That's how the DHS will be able to access the real-time data to my smart electric meter without a warrant.
not for political reasons. Most schools or universities will filter Internet content, this is nothing new, and usually it's for security reasons. I would like to know if their Content Filter picked up “change.org” by accident, or was it intentional.
This is regarding a petition against ASU fee hikes, that ASU itself claims was being spammed to their students through email. So the filtering was clearly intentional. But ASU didn't just filter the email messages containing the link to the petition, or the email headers related to the alleged spam, which would have been easy to do with spam administrative tools, the school chose to go above and beyond that by filtering the entire domain name from being accessible by the student's browsers.
This extra step only helped ensure that even the students who tried accessing the web site from other sources couldn't even access the site as well.
Now imagine if ASU tried using the same excuse for the next election and decided to filter out a democratic web site (or filter out a republican web site) because of some supposed spam one party was sending out. What do you think would happen to them as a State-sponsored public University? Yes, that's right. They'd lose State funding, or someone would be made the scapegoat and they'd be made to resign.
After all, it's dead easy to impersonate a web site and send spam on its behalf. And if admins really did filter on links alone, spammers would be taking advantage of that as a way to get their competitor's sites banned.
I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done though, since the Internet on campus is a privilege. It's no different than a Cyber Cafe, or Motel blocking access to some websites, it's their decision how they want to control their Internet.
Congratulations! Your University did a great job educating you about your rights.
This isn't Stanford or some other private institution, this is a publicly funded institution that is using our tax dollars. And it's just not blocking porn or Facebook, and it's not blocking all web sites equally, it's selectively blocking political speech that the institution is disagreeing with.
And _public_ institutions are barred from doing that kind of thing.
Apple supposedly purchase the trademark in 2009 from Proview, but it appears that they may have bought it from their Taiwanese counterparts, which the Chinese portion is using to its advantage. China being China, they are choosing to side with the Chinese-based business.
That's funny. Apple being Apple, it did the same thing with the iPhone trademark. Apple started using that trademark before they could secure all the rights to it from Cisco (who had secured the iPhone trademark three years before Apple for the much less successful "internet phone" Cisco was planning to sell).
If China awards the company anything remotely close to $1 billion, then I hope Apple pulls out of China. Wishful thinking as it is, it would be interesting to watch. I also hope all such companies fail, but that's pretty obvious.
I wouldn't worry. Apple didn't pull out of California when it found out it had to pay Cisco for the trademark.
So I doubt they'd pull out of China for the same reason.
GPS, Siri, and Bluetooth are power hungry too. And yet, it doesn't mean that you need to be using them all the time.
For me, 3G or wifi is usually good enough for what I do 95% of the time, but it's really when I need that extra speed/bandwidth that 4G has become a life saver.
Is the 4g tech itself power hungry? Mine seems to have battery trouble even when I'm stationery and the 4g signal is strong.
The same for my Evo 4G, but I'm told the latest 4G models at CES consume less power and also run less hot on 4G. For me, I have 4G turned off almost all the time, and it's really only when I need 4G speed that I turn it on (which happens only once every couple of days).
For most things like Google Navigation, downloading regular-sized apps, listening to streaming podcasts, doing email, and browsing the web, 3G is usually ok enough. It's really for watching movies at high resolution, doing video chat, downloading the latest 350 MB game, or sharing my phone as a hot spot with my friends that I prefer to turn on 4G (I'll even choose 4G over my home wifi since the 4G speeds I'm getting are much faster than my home DSL).
In your case, if you really do need 4G to be turned on all the time, you should really consider investing in an extended battery.
False. To start with, the blackberry platform has been audited, tested & certified by NATO & many governments that are not part of Echelon, such as Austria & Turkey:
http://us.blackberry.com/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp
Here is a citation for France. And here is a citation for Germany doing the same. And even Sweden and the EU issued the same warnings (although perhaps this was done just informally, as I can't seem to find the citations for those).
You made two exaggerations in your response. You shouldn't have said "many governments that are not part of Echelon". You should have said "_two_ governments that are not part of Echelon". Two governments doesn't make "many".
Also assuming Turkey and Austria were not coerced/pressured by the US/UK/Anglo coalition in their audits (an assumption I'm not willing to concede yet, because I've seen such coercions take place), it's not the "blackberry platform" which was audited by those "many" non-Echelon governments, it's just the "Blackberry Enterprise Solution" that was. This distinction is important because it's also common wisdom among high level people to keep two different phones, one for Enterprise use and one for personal use.
A European non-UK blackberry phone for personal use would not be going through company servers, but it would be going through the private BBM network in the UK (there is no way to opt out of that as per my understanding) and it would only give the user a false sense of security about being able to share personal sensitive information through it (when all of its text transmissions were indexed and analyzed through the Echelon program).
There are many governments that have threatened to ban blackberries, but none have threatened to ban iphone/android. Think about it.
"The German ministry was first advised to avoid using BlackBerry and iPhone devices in November 2009" (emphasis mine). Think about what? Your logic is flawed. Like you said yourself, some countries like the UA Emirates were upset because they couldn't view the traffic, but nothing of that means that RIM doesn't share its de-encrypted data with the Echelon program (and the country RIM originally originated from, Canada, which is indeed part of that Echelon program).
For example, given the volume of text messages, a mobile carrier in Hungary would notice if millions of messages are being routed outside the country instead of directly to their destination down the hall.
Yes, I do work and talk with some of those people. This is _my_ industry. And this is what some of those people have told me. The fact that I could back up my claims with articles from places like the BBC was sheer googling luck on my part.
And if you want to keep something secret, sending it in an unencrypted text message is a bad idea.
If you want to keep something secret, sending it as a message to anyone is a bad idea. But putting general platitudes aside, there is only one thing worse than using a knowingly unsecure communication channel, and that's the idea that you might be using an unsecure channel unknowingly (because then you'd be mislead and you simply wouldn't know to keep your mouth shut because of that false sense of security).
After all, it wouldn't take much to compromise high level people in an international negotiation. All you'd need to know is that one or two of the negotiators had used their personal Blackberry device to commit fraud, commit insider trading, or to coordinate a hot affair with their bosse's wife.
Hornets are nice planes but put us way out numbered against our nextdoor neighbors.
Who cares? Is Indonesia really threatening to attack Australia these days?
He said "exploser" which is French for "explode", which he interprets as "succeed" or "blow them away". I am originally from France and I can't say I'm familiar with that specific wording, but that's how I would interpret it myself if I ever received such a message from a co-worker (unless of course I was a terrorist, in which case context means everything).
Indeed -- but misinterpreted by whom? His colleagues, or by someone who was spying on his text messages?
This was a private text message directed _at_ his co-workers who were at a trade-show abroad. If that message had really been about a real bomb, it would imply that anyone it was directed at would have been an accomplice. Also, I doubt the authorities would have waited until the co-workers came back through border control to interrogate them if the complaints had really come from the co-workers themselves.
And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
My bet would be that they were using Blackberry's private BBMs network. In Europe (except for the UK), government officials and high ranking businessmen are told not to use Blackberries, because all the traffic is said to be shared de-encrypted with the US/UK/Canadian/New Zealand/Australian intelligence's echelon program as part of their anglo-security intelligence sharing pact. It is said that even if you're sending a text or an email to an office worker just standing in an office down the hall from you, it doesn't matter where you are in Europe, and even if you're not in the UK, the text or email will first go through the UK so that it can first be indexed and analyzed by the echelon program before it can make its way back to your country and be delivered to your co-worker.
We need to be asking the right questions here:
He made the tweet on Jan 21,
It wasn't a tweet, it was a text message.
...and he was picked up three days later. That is an incredibly fast turnaround for law enforcement, even for the US or Canada.
but if you think about it, "three days later" is kind of useless for an SMS that is supposed to trigger an explosion. One would think less than 3 minutes (or less than 3 hours) would be a better time frame for executing that kind of order.
3. WHY did they go after his co-workers?
The text was directed at his co-workers. Since he told them to "exploser", and they didn't, the authorities probably thought that they were having second thoughts, or that they were incompetent terrorists (just like the shoe-bomber was). And if you've ever watched 24, everybody knows you interrogate the weakest terrorists first.
You could, but do you? I haven't seen any evidence that countries with socialized medicine, on the whole, put any more restrictions on people's health habits than those without.
If anything, it would seem the US is trying to overcompensate for its lack of socialized medicine, by over doing it on its war on cigarettes, on its war on drugs, and on its war on good food (by enriching it with all kinds of vitamins and other junk).
Health Insurance Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on dna information. I believe that bill was signed by W Bush.
Thought, this law doesn't protect against this type of discrimination for Life Insurance. Life Insurance is a little bit more tricky than Health Insurance, because if insurance companies are told not to discriminate on dna for Life Insurance, then people who have deadly genes will play the odds and load up on as much Life Insurance as they can just before their number comes up.
I can't find a citation, but that's ok, I'll live even if you don't believe me.