Ever try running blu-ray outside of a PlayStation?
I have a blu-ray drive in my media computer. (The one hooked up to the TV and sound system.) When I try to play a newer blu-ray disk, I am told it won't work and I need to buy a new player. Fortunately there are some free alternatives, coupled with AnyDVD, that will still decode and play the newer disks.
When I try to play a blu-ray in the dedicated blu-ray player, it simply boots up as unreadable and asks for a firmware update... but there are no firmware updates to be had for the device any more.
In my view, it is the over-zealous DRM that is killing the format. The video quality is great, and storage capacity is wonderful, and I would love to get a burner for my PC if discs were affordable. Right now its only use is HD movies that take 3-5 minutes to start playing thanks to DRM and other garbage on the disk.
So everything he says is complete bullshit. What a sorry ass liar.
He is Secretary of State. His job is to deceive and lie on an international scale. Like most of the senior politicians, his skills in doublespeak, deception, mischaracterization, and outright lies are outstanding.
Go read the actual transcript. Much of it is ambiguous generic "lofty ideals" and "we are committed to" and "we believe in" rhetoric. There are many "we believe" and "we trust" and "we need to" statements. Like most speeches from that level of government, signal-to-rhetoric level is rather terrible.
His conclusion "we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history" is just one of many generic truisms. Recall that one of the spoils of victory is writing the history books, so basically his speech is "the US government needs to win this battle, that way we can be right."
"Error establishing a database connection"
Maybe they're not so good at web sites.
No, they are surviving a slashdotting, which is no small feat for a small website that is doing database lookups and financial processing and no CDN to distribute the burden.
No, it isn't. From the ZeniMax statement in the article:
The proprietary technology and know-how Mr. Carmack developed when he was a ZeniMax employee, and used by Oculus, are owned by ZeniMax.
So they are claiming that he also stole the "know-how".
If he actually took some ZeniMax programs, that is one thing. And if true, I can see how ZeniMax might have some claims.
But the term "know-how" tends to be common in unenforceable non-compete agreements, and are generally shunned in courts. People learn stuff, making the people more valuable. That is just how life works, and that is not usually a valid claim. When the people move on they can still keep secrets, but they cannot be made to unlearn that which they have learned.
There is the ability to write scripts. And there is understanding of the field of computer science. The first is a miniscule subset of the second.
There are jobs where people only need the subset of skills needed to write scripts. There are jobs where scripting is the main task but a knowledge of theory is useful. And there are jobs where the 'science' aspect of computer science is critical.
Data is legally owned and controlled by somebody, and that's the one getting the subpoena.
Read it again. Even the/. summary covers it properly.
They did not get a subpoena, which would have forced Microsoft to turn
it over. The used a search warrant, which allows the (unspecified) government to swoop in and seize the servers. Located in Ireland. Using a US's renound paramilitary law enforcement. In Ireland. Seizing Irish equipment from an Irish branch of the company, used by Irish people and defended by an Irish police force.
The (unspecified) US government agency requested the ability (and the judge authorized) to enter the Irish facility and take the machines by force if necessary -- that is how search warrants work.
The fact that they even requested it is troubling. The fact that the agency was granted it is fairly terrifying. If this doesn't get taken down in an appeal, the article and summary are correct, it means the US government is basically declaring sovereignty over the world even more than before. This isn't Afghanistan or Iraq, but Ireland they would be using force against.
One says "You are not to be trusted, we are taking everything into our possession and searching it ourselves." The other says "You are able to provide the materials, do so."
Read the article and the released ruling. The unspecified agency requested and received legal demand to force their way into an Irish facility and seize their computers.
In some ways I would like to see the (currently unspecified) government agency attempt to execute the warrant. They will have US forces use force to invade a facility in Ireland, staffed by the Irish, presumably with Irish security guards and Irish police being called. The actions would immediately turn this from a US-specific argument into an international conflict. Could be fun to watch it play out.
The Judge ordered the information, there's not much a LEO can do except comply; or appeal to a higher court. This could be considered a stalling tactic. As for the reference to the judge as a tool; now I see comedy.
Yes, a judge can order the information for himself, but that isn't what happened. Almost always it is the LEOs demanding the warrants, and that is what happened here.
The LEOs go to the judge and say "we need a search warrant", or "we need a subpoena". The judge reviews the request and signs off.
In this case the officers requested a search warrant, which allows the seizure of equipment. They want to capture entire servers, make images of them, and then store the servers for the court.
The correct legal instrument is a subpoena, which allows the company to search for the documents and provide them to a court. The reason to use a search warrant to seize the machines is if there is an immediate need to remove them. If there was a fear that the machines would all be wiped and the contents destroyed. This is unlikely to be the case with Microsoft. The other reason to use a search warrant by the unspecified government agency is that they want to mirror the machines and search it for other content beyond the specific emails. Unfortunately that looks like it is their goal, not obtaining the specific emails and documents but to make mirrors of the servers for their own purposes.
The FBI (or any other agency/court) can certainly argue for a subpoena for data given to a third party. Whether they ever actually get it or not is another story.
That is correct. They can use a subpoena for it.
A subpoena tells the organization to collect the documents and turn it over in a reasonable time frame.
But they are not using a subpoena. They are using a search warrant.
A search warrant allows LEOs to search the buildings and seize anything that looks like it might have the stuff in the warrant. As in, "These servers look like they might have email, remove them all from the building." A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments. A search warrant is usually used when there is an immediate need to collect the data in fear that the person might destroy it and the LEOs have an immediate need to remove it.
It is an unspecified government agency, and because it is a search warrant they WILL just seize entire servers and search them at their leisure. That is the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant, and LEOs absolutely love search warrants.
The problem is they are using the entirely wrong legal tool.
I think the fact that it's an American company being ordered to produce the data factors in here.
Close, but wrong.
Being ordered to produce data is called a subpoena. That is the normal tool for producing emails and documents. A subpoena orders the company to find the documents meeting the criteria and produce them for the court.
A search warrant allows LEOs to enter the building, search for everything themselves, and seize anything that might appear to satisfy the warrant. So they would enter the server room and immediately seize any computer that looks like it might have the email on it.
The unnamed government agency got a warrant to seize a bunch of computers, and are acting under the guise that they are asking for specific information.
It is completely the wrong tool. It would be nice to think it was a simple mistake, picking the wrong tool to get information.... unless it is an agency looking to do far more than find some specific emails. Unfortunately it is probably the latter, given that everything is under seal and they are demanding to allow US federal agents into a non-US facility to seize servers.
No, because the judge and (LEOs) are using the wrong tool.
A subpoena is an order to produce a document (or to require a person to appear). This is the tool they would normally use to get an email or any other document. The LEOs do not get any access except to have the document produced.
A search warrant is an order allowing LEOs to immediately search everything they want, and then seize whatever they think satisfies the warrant.
Normally a subpoena is used to get an email. The company searches their databases and provides it. Using a search warrant is absurd, it means the police break into the server room, and say "This computer seems like it might have email, we're seizing it."
Of course, that may be EXACTLY what the LEOs are trying to do in this case, but barring some exceptional power-grab by LEOs, it is the wrong legal tool.
That's ridiculous. I download firmware patches, software patches, etc on a daily basis. Patching heartbleed wouldn't even be out of the ordinary for my job as CIO. It basically costs IT nothing.
That is the difficulty with all the estimates. Software defects, upgrades, and maintenance all cost money but it is generally just rolled up as part of the cost of doing business.
Every time a new patch or service pack or update gets released, there is a cost. But the cost is so commonplace as to be meaningless.
From the article, costs 1-5 are just normal business tasks. Of course there is a cost to rolling out patches. Every month's Patch Tuesday has Microsoft's patches costing organizations millions of dollars collectively around the globe. Security audits for this bug need to be done, but they need to be done for all the other recent discoveries as well. They are just costs associated with maintaining servers, much like the cost of oil changes and tires are associated with maintaining vehicles. They are not costs because of the bug specifically, they are costs because of all bugs and attacks generally.
Cost 6, "stolen data" is so vague as to be meaningless; if not heartbleed than some other exploit will be used to steal the valuable data.
This whole idea is unnecessary if the wireless carriers would just set up a database of stolen IMEI information.
They already do in many countries. The UK has had IMEI blacklists for several years. The US is just late to the party.
Now in an ideal world they would actually track the devices back, notify law enforcement, and collect the stolen device. But sadly that doesn't happen.
The carriers already can (and do) block stolen phones. Each phone has a unique IMEI number, in addition to the SIM card number.
The carriers are already required to do this in some countries, and do it voluntarily in other countries. They just don't do it in the US.
IMEI blacklists are common in many countries, including the UK. When a device is stolen the IMEI number is put on the list and carriers reject the device and (potentially) notify investigators.
can the police officer force the boy to destroy evidence?
Not legally. Read the article. The officer can ask, cajole, beg, and plead, but not force the destruction.
Imagine this in court, "I'm sorry your honor, we had evidence but the police officer destroyed it." Every officer knows and is repeatedly trained that they cannot destroy evidence. That doesn't mean they can't encourage others to do it before it becomes 'evidence' in a case.
The details in the story are important. The officer didn't destroy the evidence. Because that would be, you know, bad. Instead he told the kid to delete it and made threats about what might happen if the boy got in trouble and the evidence were used against him.
there is at least 1 state where if you are not disabled YOU MUST HAVE ENOUGH INCOME TO BUY INSURANCE.
I'm in that boat after a layoff.
I have earned too much through occasional side contract work that I don't qualify for temporary assistance. (claim denied, appeal denied, since picking up side jobs in the past turns me into a contract worker somehow despite my main job.) I cannot afford the rates they offer on permanent insurance. Meanwhile job hunting is not going to well.
So I can go for COBRA for $3500 per month, or pay for a 'cheap' plan at $650 per month and $5000 deductible.
When my income is $0 per month, requiring me to pay $650 per month is too much.
You're not building an office building without bribes.
Actually, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act takes that into account.
They can pay people when it is made to an official to expedite his performance of the duties he is already bound to perform.
Walmart almost got in trouble for that a few years back for building permits, but since they claimed the buildings would eventually be built anyway rather than swaying from a yes/no position, everything went away.
This wasn't a normal "grease payment". A grease payment for a building permit is more like how you might tip your waiter after a meal; it isn't mandatory but is customary for continued good service in some parts of the world. The article describes things like flying government reps to the US for vacations and tourism, money laundering, and frequent deliveries of big bags of cash.
So what? If the people charged with a crime ever go to Poland, this might actually mean something.
In the article (yeah, who bothers with that) you will note that it was several of the regional executives who were fired for bribes. They are not meaning the CEO level.
So yes, it is quite likely that some of those regional executives do live in the affected countries, and it will definitely mean something as they no longer have corporate ties to fund their defense.
That is what the judge wrote in his order. The court order makes for some intense reading compared to
most rulings.
The last paragraph in his order is about as strict as he could word it: I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions./Signed/ RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
If he removed the stay he would need to allow the government time to implement the changes. This way the clock is already ticking.
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.
Obviously you didn't read the article, nor understand the summary.
The court did not ignore the case. There is a procedure. It starts at the circuit court. Then it goes through the appeals court, usually first with panel of 3, then the full appeals court. The SCOTUS is the final level of appeals.
The process works as a vetting and refining system. The SCOTUS only gets involved in situations where different appeals courts have used differing standards or when there are certain controversial or seemingly contradictory situations. The district judge wanted to get around the procedures. It is very rarely successful except in cases where urgency is required and the implications are severe, such as the 'hanging chads' controversy. The court disagreed, wanting the case to go through the normal process.
As with every issue that is a political hot topic, the SCOTUS will tend to wait to give congress a chance to address this before ruling. Often when Congress amends the law while a case is in progress, the appeal will simply remand it back to the district court with an order to follow the revised law rather than the old law.
As of now, in the DC court, his initial ruling (that the bulk collection is unconstitutional) still stands, even though he put in a stay (delay before carrying out the order) in order to allow for appeals. If he felt so strongly he could have not accepted the stay, which would mean the government would need to implement the order immediately and the feds would have needed to petition for an emergency stay from a higher court.
Right now the ruling is that the collection is unlawful. With the appeal denied so far, that decision stands. That is what we want, so don't complain about it.
...not to include a couple of clunkers in the test; the sort of violins the average student may possess at high school.
Why? They can be dismissed out of hand. Not a professional by any means, but almost a decade of lessons during childhood. The difference between a "clunker" and a quality instrument is instantly obvious to the player.
There are the differences in construction and the parts. I have seen student violins pop their glued seams. I have heard the wood creak as they are handled and placed in position, as pressure from the bow is applied. Cheap fingerboards tend to vibrate uncomfortably. I went a few times to a violin shop and just played around on the various instruments. I was young enough that I didn't care about cost, just went around playing them. Violins in one area felt like fingernails on a chalkboard and sounded similar. I found part of the shop with a stash of violins that felt like silk and had beautiful tone, and after falling in love with several of them was gently told that those were far outside hat we could afford.
If I could tell that kind of difference as a non-professional youth, I cannot imagine a professional picking up a squeaky, creaky 'violin shaped object' as they are called, and confusing it for a well-made instrument.
Cut out the middleman and no downtime from corporate ineptitude.
Great. Explain to your technically illiterate parents, friends and neighbors how to implement DynDNS, how to poke holes in their firewall, and how to implement a web-based TLS-using file server.
The point of these devices is that a lay person can plug it in to their home network, put in a username and password, then access their 4TB drive anywhere on the world.
I've got one, I've got a 2TB collection of data that I regularly syphon files from when I am traveling. It is easy and works great, I don't need to leave a PC running (draining my wallet through the power company) to access all the data since it is a low-power device. It is as fast as my internet speed and costs nothing for the service.
Choose your vendor carefully. HDD manufacturers are probably not good at cloud services.
You obviously don't know what the MyCloud service is.
Basically it does the same job of Dynamic DNS and NAT traversal, but just for your network drive. You attach your drive to your home network --- up to 4TB in size --- provide a username and password, and you're done. You log in to their wd2go site and have full access to your 4TB drive. It saves the hassle of trying to fight constantly rolling IP addresses, trying to open ports and map them to devices, and do all the other technical stuff.
Hence the name. "My Cloud". Not "Google's Cloud", or "Amazon's Cloud" or "Drop Box's Cloud", it is a cheap and easy way to get your mass storage online.
To be fair, many probes have done this type of thing.
The Voyager probes had software updates regularly in their prime, and it frequently made news back in the day. When approaching a planet or interesting object they would upload imaging software, when finished they would upload different sensor programs. About a decade ago (2003?) there were news stories about how they reprogrammed one of the probes to help detect the crossover to deep space.
It is certainly interesting and poses some risk of breaking the probe, but it is standard procedure and something the probes are designed for.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever try running blu-ray outside of a PlayStation?
I have a blu-ray drive in my media computer. (The one hooked up to the TV and sound system.) When I try to play a newer blu-ray disk, I am told it won't work and I need to buy a new player. Fortunately there are some free alternatives, coupled with AnyDVD, that will still decode and play the newer disks.
When I try to play a blu-ray in the dedicated blu-ray player, it simply boots up as unreadable and asks for a firmware update... but there are no firmware updates to be had for the device any more.
In my view, it is the over-zealous DRM that is killing the format. The video quality is great, and storage capacity is wonderful, and I would love to get a burner for my PC if discs were affordable. Right now its only use is HD movies that take 3-5 minutes to start playing thanks to DRM and other garbage on the disk.
So everything he says is complete bullshit. What a sorry ass liar.
He is Secretary of State. His job is to deceive and lie on an international scale. Like most of the senior politicians, his skills in doublespeak, deception, mischaracterization, and outright lies are outstanding.
Go read the actual transcript. Much of it is ambiguous generic "lofty ideals" and "we are committed to" and "we believe in" rhetoric. There are many "we believe" and "we trust" and "we need to" statements. Like most speeches from that level of government, signal-to-rhetoric level is rather terrible.
His conclusion "we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history" is just one of many generic truisms. Recall that one of the spoils of victory is writing the history books, so basically his speech is "the US government needs to win this battle, that way we can be right."
"Error establishing a database connection" Maybe they're not so good at web sites.
No, they are surviving a slashdotting, which is no small feat for a small website that is doing database lookups and financial processing and no CDN to distribute the burden.
And also they are nearly to the 25% mark.
No, it isn't. From the ZeniMax statement in the article:
The proprietary technology and know-how Mr. Carmack developed when he was a ZeniMax employee, and used by Oculus, are owned by ZeniMax.
So they are claiming that he also stole the "know-how".
If he actually took some ZeniMax programs, that is one thing. And if true, I can see how ZeniMax might have some claims.
But the term "know-how" tends to be common in unenforceable non-compete agreements, and are generally shunned in courts. People learn stuff, making the people more valuable. That is just how life works, and that is not usually a valid claim. When the people move on they can still keep secrets, but they cannot be made to unlearn that which they have learned.
There is the ability to write scripts. And there is understanding of the field of computer science. The first is a miniscule subset of the second.
There are jobs where people only need the subset of skills needed to write scripts. There are jobs where scripting is the main task but a knowledge of theory is useful. And there are jobs where the 'science' aspect of computer science is critical.
Data is legally owned and controlled by somebody, and that's the one getting the subpoena.
Read it again. Even the /. summary covers it properly.
They did not get a subpoena, which would have forced Microsoft to turn it over. The used a search warrant, which allows the (unspecified) government to swoop in and seize the servers. Located in Ireland. Using a US's renound paramilitary law enforcement. In Ireland. Seizing Irish equipment from an Irish branch of the company, used by Irish people and defended by an Irish police force.
The (unspecified) US government agency requested the ability (and the judge authorized) to enter the Irish facility and take the machines by force if necessary -- that is how search warrants work.
The fact that they even requested it is troubling. The fact that the agency was granted it is fairly terrifying. If this doesn't get taken down in an appeal, the article and summary are correct, it means the US government is basically declaring sovereignty over the world even more than before. This isn't Afghanistan or Iraq, but Ireland they would be using force against.
Not at all.
One says "You are not to be trusted, we are taking everything into our possession and searching it ourselves." The other says "You are able to provide the materials, do so."
Read the article and the released ruling. The unspecified agency requested and received legal demand to force their way into an Irish facility and seize their computers.
In some ways I would like to see the (currently unspecified) government agency attempt to execute the warrant. They will have US forces use force to invade a facility in Ireland, staffed by the Irish, presumably with Irish security guards and Irish police being called. The actions would immediately turn this from a US-specific argument into an international conflict. Could be fun to watch it play out.
The Judge ordered the information, there's not much a LEO can do except comply; or appeal to a higher court. This could be considered a stalling tactic. As for the reference to the judge as a tool; now I see comedy.
Yes, a judge can order the information for himself, but that isn't what happened. Almost always it is the LEOs demanding the warrants, and that is what happened here.
The LEOs go to the judge and say "we need a search warrant", or "we need a subpoena". The judge reviews the request and signs off.
In this case the officers requested a search warrant, which allows the seizure of equipment. They want to capture entire servers, make images of them, and then store the servers for the court.
The correct legal instrument is a subpoena, which allows the company to search for the documents and provide them to a court. The reason to use a search warrant to seize the machines is if there is an immediate need to remove them. If there was a fear that the machines would all be wiped and the contents destroyed. This is unlikely to be the case with Microsoft. The other reason to use a search warrant by the unspecified government agency is that they want to mirror the machines and search it for other content beyond the specific emails. Unfortunately that looks like it is their goal, not obtaining the specific emails and documents but to make mirrors of the servers for their own purposes.
The FBI (or any other agency/court) can certainly argue for a subpoena for data given to a third party. Whether they ever actually get it or not is another story.
That is correct. They can use a subpoena for it.
A subpoena tells the organization to collect the documents and turn it over in a reasonable time frame.
But they are not using a subpoena. They are using a search warrant.
A search warrant allows LEOs to search the buildings and seize anything that looks like it might have the stuff in the warrant. As in, "These servers look like they might have email, remove them all from the building." A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments. A search warrant is usually used when there is an immediate need to collect the data in fear that the person might destroy it and the LEOs have an immediate need to remove it.
It is an unspecified government agency, and because it is a search warrant they WILL just seize entire servers and search them at their leisure. That is the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant, and LEOs absolutely love search warrants.
The problem is they are using the entirely wrong legal tool.
I think the fact that it's an American company being ordered to produce the data factors in here.
Close, but wrong.
Being ordered to produce data is called a subpoena. That is the normal tool for producing emails and documents. A subpoena orders the company to find the documents meeting the criteria and produce them for the court.
A search warrant allows LEOs to enter the building, search for everything themselves, and seize anything that might appear to satisfy the warrant. So they would enter the server room and immediately seize any computer that looks like it might have the email on it.
The unnamed government agency got a warrant to seize a bunch of computers, and are acting under the guise that they are asking for specific information.
It is completely the wrong tool. It would be nice to think it was a simple mistake, picking the wrong tool to get information. ... unless it is an agency looking to do far more than find some specific emails. Unfortunately it is probably the latter, given that everything is under seal and they are demanding to allow US federal agents into a non-US facility to seize servers.
No, because the judge and (LEOs) are using the wrong tool.
A subpoena is an order to produce a document (or to require a person to appear). This is the tool they would normally use to get an email or any other document. The LEOs do not get any access except to have the document produced.
A search warrant is an order allowing LEOs to immediately search everything they want, and then seize whatever they think satisfies the warrant.
Normally a subpoena is used to get an email. The company searches their databases and provides it. Using a search warrant is absurd, it means the police break into the server room, and say "This computer seems like it might have email, we're seizing it."
Of course, that may be EXACTLY what the LEOs are trying to do in this case, but barring some exceptional power-grab by LEOs, it is the wrong legal tool.
That's ridiculous. I download firmware patches, software patches, etc on a daily basis. Patching heartbleed wouldn't even be out of the ordinary for my job as CIO. It basically costs IT nothing.
That is the difficulty with all the estimates. Software defects, upgrades, and maintenance all cost money but it is generally just rolled up as part of the cost of doing business.
Every time a new patch or service pack or update gets released, there is a cost. But the cost is so commonplace as to be meaningless.
From the article, costs 1-5 are just normal business tasks. Of course there is a cost to rolling out patches. Every month's Patch Tuesday has Microsoft's patches costing organizations millions of dollars collectively around the globe. Security audits for this bug need to be done, but they need to be done for all the other recent discoveries as well. They are just costs associated with maintaining servers, much like the cost of oil changes and tires are associated with maintaining vehicles. They are not costs because of the bug specifically, they are costs because of all bugs and attacks generally.
Cost 6, "stolen data" is so vague as to be meaningless; if not heartbleed than some other exploit will be used to steal the valuable data.
This whole idea is unnecessary if the wireless carriers would just set up a database of stolen IMEI information.
They already do in many countries. The UK has had IMEI blacklists for several years. The US is just late to the party.
Now in an ideal world they would actually track the devices back, notify law enforcement, and collect the stolen device. But sadly that doesn't happen.
The carriers already can (and do) block stolen phones. Each phone has a unique IMEI number, in addition to the SIM card number.
The carriers are already required to do this in some countries, and do it voluntarily in other countries. They just don't do it in the US.
IMEI blacklists are common in many countries, including the UK. When a device is stolen the IMEI number is put on the list and carriers reject the device and (potentially) notify investigators.
can the police officer force the boy to destroy evidence?
Not legally. Read the article. The officer can ask, cajole, beg, and plead, but not force the destruction.
Imagine this in court, "I'm sorry your honor, we had evidence but the police officer destroyed it." Every officer knows and is repeatedly trained that they cannot destroy evidence. That doesn't mean they can't encourage others to do it before it becomes 'evidence' in a case.
The details in the story are important. The officer didn't destroy the evidence. Because that would be, you know, bad. Instead he told the kid to delete it and made threats about what might happen if the boy got in trouble and the evidence were used against him.
Why do you let your politicians get away with such bullshit?
You are mistaken if you think the people still (if ever) control the government.
there is at least 1 state where if you are not disabled YOU MUST HAVE ENOUGH INCOME TO BUY INSURANCE.
I'm in that boat after a layoff.
I have earned too much through occasional side contract work that I don't qualify for temporary assistance. (claim denied, appeal denied, since picking up side jobs in the past turns me into a contract worker somehow despite my main job.) I cannot afford the rates they offer on permanent insurance. Meanwhile job hunting is not going to well.
So I can go for COBRA for $3500 per month, or pay for a 'cheap' plan at $650 per month and $5000 deductible.
When my income is $0 per month, requiring me to pay $650 per month is too much.
You're not building an office building without bribes.
Actually, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act takes that into account.
They can pay people when it is made to an official to expedite his performance of the duties he is already bound to perform.
Walmart almost got in trouble for that a few years back for building permits, but since they claimed the buildings would eventually be built anyway rather than swaying from a yes/no position, everything went away.
This wasn't a normal "grease payment". A grease payment for a building permit is more like how you might tip your waiter after a meal; it isn't mandatory but is customary for continued good service in some parts of the world. The article describes things like flying government reps to the US for vacations and tourism, money laundering, and frequent deliveries of big bags of cash.
So what? If the people charged with a crime ever go to Poland, this might actually mean something.
In the article (yeah, who bothers with that) you will note that it was several of the regional executives who were fired for bribes. They are not meaning the CEO level.
So yes, it is quite likely that some of those regional executives do live in the affected countries, and it will definitely mean something as they no longer have corporate ties to fund their defense.
That is what the judge wrote in his order. The court order makes for some intense reading compared to most rulings.
The last paragraph in his order is about as strict as he could word it: I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions. /Signed/ RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
If he removed the stay he would need to allow the government time to implement the changes. This way the clock is already ticking.
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.
Obviously you didn't read the article, nor understand the summary.
The court did not ignore the case. There is a procedure. It starts at the circuit court. Then it goes through the appeals court, usually first with panel of 3, then the full appeals court. The SCOTUS is the final level of appeals.
The process works as a vetting and refining system. The SCOTUS only gets involved in situations where different appeals courts have used differing standards or when there are certain controversial or seemingly contradictory situations. The district judge wanted to get around the procedures. It is very rarely successful except in cases where urgency is required and the implications are severe, such as the 'hanging chads' controversy. The court disagreed, wanting the case to go through the normal process.
As with every issue that is a political hot topic, the SCOTUS will tend to wait to give congress a chance to address this before ruling. Often when Congress amends the law while a case is in progress, the appeal will simply remand it back to the district court with an order to follow the revised law rather than the old law.
As of now, in the DC court, his initial ruling (that the bulk collection is unconstitutional) still stands, even though he put in a stay (delay before carrying out the order) in order to allow for appeals. If he felt so strongly he could have not accepted the stay, which would mean the government would need to implement the order immediately and the feds would have needed to petition for an emergency stay from a higher court.
Right now the ruling is that the collection is unlawful. With the appeal denied so far, that decision stands. That is what we want, so don't complain about it.
...not to include a couple of clunkers in the test; the sort of violins the average student may possess at high school.
Why? They can be dismissed out of hand. Not a professional by any means, but almost a decade of lessons during childhood. The difference between a "clunker" and a quality instrument is instantly obvious to the player.
There are the differences in construction and the parts. I have seen student violins pop their glued seams. I have heard the wood creak as they are handled and placed in position, as pressure from the bow is applied. Cheap fingerboards tend to vibrate uncomfortably. I went a few times to a violin shop and just played around on the various instruments. I was young enough that I didn't care about cost, just went around playing them. Violins in one area felt like fingernails on a chalkboard and sounded similar. I found part of the shop with a stash of violins that felt like silk and had beautiful tone, and after falling in love with several of them was gently told that those were far outside hat we could afford.
If I could tell that kind of difference as a non-professional youth, I cannot imagine a professional picking up a squeaky, creaky 'violin shaped object' as they are called, and confusing it for a well-made instrument.
Cut out the middleman and no downtime from corporate ineptitude.
Great. Explain to your technically illiterate parents, friends and neighbors how to implement DynDNS, how to poke holes in their firewall, and how to implement a web-based TLS-using file server.
The point of these devices is that a lay person can plug it in to their home network, put in a username and password, then access their 4TB drive anywhere on the world.
I've got one, I've got a 2TB collection of data that I regularly syphon files from when I am traveling. It is easy and works great, I don't need to leave a PC running (draining my wallet through the power company) to access all the data since it is a low-power device. It is as fast as my internet speed and costs nothing for the service.
Choose your vendor carefully. HDD manufacturers are probably not good at cloud services.
You obviously don't know what the MyCloud service is.
Basically it does the same job of Dynamic DNS and NAT traversal, but just for your network drive. You attach your drive to your home network --- up to 4TB in size --- provide a username and password, and you're done. You log in to their wd2go site and have full access to your 4TB drive. It saves the hassle of trying to fight constantly rolling IP addresses, trying to open ports and map them to devices, and do all the other technical stuff.
Hence the name. "My Cloud". Not "Google's Cloud", or "Amazon's Cloud" or "Drop Box's Cloud", it is a cheap and easy way to get your mass storage online.
To be fair, many probes have done this type of thing.
The Voyager probes had software updates regularly in their prime, and it frequently made news back in the day. When approaching a planet or interesting object they would upload imaging software, when finished they would upload different sensor programs. About a decade ago (2003?) there were news stories about how they reprogrammed one of the probes to help detect the crossover to deep space.
It is certainly interesting and poses some risk of breaking the probe, but it is standard procedure and something the probes are designed for.