Groupwise has been used here, too. I find it kinda funny when I see "X would like to retract email Y" messages - anything sent to me by Groupwise users is forwarded out of the Groupwise system to an Imap server...
I like to think that power-nerds are essential to evolution of the species. I mean, take Asperger's Syndrome - high IQ and the ability to focus tightly on one specific thing - ideal for piloting a ship to Mars and the asteroids... Probably won't happen until something like cold sleep is developed so that the "normals" don't go nuts during the trip, but still.
We really need to get off this rock before something dire happens to wipe us out.
Company rules: check your email often, especially when working from home. I check it when I get in to work, then leave the window open on a second display in case I get something from one of the monitoring tools. Luckily I don't often have to worry about my boss asking about email she sends - I work nights, she works days...
I just don't answer my home phone - it's hardly ever for me, and the answering machine takes messages for the other folks here pretty well. If it's important, the caller will leave a message. If they don't leave a message, it was probably a telemarketer. Just because I *have* a phone doesn't mean I *have* to answer it.
I guess I'm just addicted to *not* picking the damn thing up when it rings unexpectedly...:)
Selection isn't just going on with people picking mates for whatever random traits please them. Selection is also happening through advances in medicine... Hospitals are now able to save babies that would have had little or no chance 100 years ago. Doctors can keep alive for far longer people with adverse mutations that would otherwise prove fatal.
Granted, only a small percentage might be able to breed, but in times past that percentage would have been far smaller.
One compelling reason for not wearing gloves to "cheat" the sensor would be that, if you were pulled over and tested positive, the judge would be much more likely to hand down a severe sentence. Not only were you driving drunk, but also knowingly took steps to bypass the safety equipment.
If the sensor registers "no hands", it shouldn't allow the car to start. If there was an interlock with a driver seat sensor, it definitely shouldn't start if it detects "butt in seat, no hands".
Studies have shown that most people at 0.08% are still fully capable of driving, and that the legal limit should be 0.10%
I remember reading (years ago) about a guy who was pulled over and breath-tested, and turned out to be over the limit. He swore up and down that he hadn't had anything to drink at all. The police locked him up overnight, retested him on the morning and got the same result. Further observation and testing showed that this particular guy had a *natural* blood alcohol level that exceeded the legal limit.
I guess what this shows is that the lower the limits are set, the more likely it is that any random person would be DUI regardless of alcohol consumption.
No, I don't remember where I saw it, other than that it was in a UK newspaper about 20-25 years ago, and it wasn't one of those "sensationalist" papers that prints junk, like "Hitler alive and well, living on the moon!!!!!"
Unless you spill the vodka while driving, there's a very good chance that the actual alcohol would have evaporated by the time you got into your car. As long as the sensor picks up alcohol, and doesn't detect any other non-intoxicating residue, you should be good to go.
I'd bet very good money that some associates of major Christian religions may be involved in copyright violations, too, but that alone proves NOTHING about the evilness or wrongness of it.
Shoot, it's widely believed that Americans were helping to fund the IRA, who would happily bomb civilians in pubs and busy streets in order to free Northern Ireland from the oppressive British. I dunno, maybe they're reliving the War for Independance - sure sucks for the women and children caught in the middle though.
doesn't anyone in the US Government think rationally anymore?
Of course they're thinking rationally. But their definition of rational doesn't necessarily match anyone else's definition. Even an insane person's idea of reality makes perfect sense inside his own head. It's just when that point of view conflicts with everyone else's that he's declared insane.
In the context of this article by the police Lt., he is concerned with the counterfeit goods being sold and that money being funneled to [whomever]. There is nothing he personally can do about Middle East government money being funneled to terrorists. He can, however, arrest people selling counterfeit goods.
But does that police Lt have any actual evidence that money from sales of counterfeit goods is really funding terrorism?? If not, the only possible reason to mention terrorism in relation to a case is to prejudice judges and juries in his favor.
One thing that the police didn't find, or at least if they did they left it out of evidence, was any encrypted files. Making the jump from "there's an encryption program installed" to "therefore he's guilty" would be like, to use your analogy, finding a body and a shovel and convicting the guy as a mass murderer. Obviously if the guy killed once and owns a shovel, there must be numerous shallow, unmarked graves containing his other victims...
Note I'm not defending this lowlife, just questioning the jump from "encryption" to "criminal intent".
Except that "The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files" (from TFA). I have a truck and a case of beer. Should I be convicted of drunk driving if I've never been stopped and breath-tested?? You'd say yes, apparently - possession of a vehicle & alcohol would prove intent to drive while drunk.
The Prosecutor would likely argue that the existence of the encryption software demonstrates that the defendant knew that what he was doing was wrong and that he was trying to hide damning evidence.
And Defence should have argued that existence of the encryption software proves nothing other than that there was encryption software on the system. It could conceivably have been part of the original system load and not even used by the accused. For example, doing a full install of RedHat very likely installs gpg or some other encryption software.
Assuming they also found encrypted files, that only proves that something was encrypted. Could be bank statements, tv listings, photos of his dog, anything.
I may trust my co-workers, but I'm not sure I trust the out-sourced janitorial staff who come around during the evening when there's nobody else there. I don't know what kind of background check might be done on the janitors, but it's probably not as thorough as that done on employees.
Try not to do what my daughter did - accidentally get the phone mixed in with dirty laundry. It went through a whole wash/spin/tumbledry cycle... Came out mostly working - the backlight is busted and the keypad doesn't work as well as it should, but it's sort of OK. Not having a backlight makes it difficult to read the display, though.
The really stupid thing is that we have a whole working spare phone, but it's AT&T, and the washed'n'dried phone is Cingular. OK, so they're the same damn company now, but they still won't unlock the AT&T phone to use the Cingular SIM card in it.
Well, there is one corporate password that we use for all company websites. Whichever one you go to first, pops up an authentication box for netid & password, and then all the others are supposed to use the same thing. Some don't recognise it, or use a different realm, or something stupid, so you have to re-enter the same damn netid/password yet again... I think it's the same password for access to corporate Windows servers and Exchange email too. For people that fit that profile, there's only one password to remember, and I think *that* one only has to change every 90 days.
Problem is, I'm a Unix admin, and the nearest thing there is to Single Sign On on the Unix boxes is SeOS, which is the biggest PITA ever. I think it even *reduces* security, because if an attacker can guess a userid/password, he immediately has access to "sesu" to root. Yep, SeOS takes all the fun out of gaining root access after breaking into a user account. Oh, not all users have sesu access - oh wait, yes we do, because the only users *are* the admins... SeOS has policy servers that allow you to be locked out of whole clouds of servers instantly if you get your password wrong 3 times...
I'm working on my own Single Sign On solution - passwords encrypted in a database and a Tcl/Tk front-end to pop up an xterm and ssh to the target. That way I could run a cron job every 28 days to update every password to some truly random value and I wouldn't have to care about it.
I *wish* we had a single corporate password... I'm registered on over 1800 systems, each with 30-45 day password reset requirements. Some of them remember old password for 180 days, some won't let you reuse the last 6 passwords, some will allow alphanumeric combos that others won't. Passowrd Change Day is a bitch. If it only takes 1 minute to change a password, that's 30 hours...
What happens then if I get hit with spyware from some other country?
Write to your congressman. He'll forward your letter to a collating department at the Dept of Homeland Security. The first country/state/banana republic to score a stack 1 inch high (or 1000 complaints, whichever occurs first) wins a free WMD inspection courtesy of Dubya. Use really thick paper for quick results...
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck making the embedded graphic thing work with Gmail. It doesn't display external images unless you explicitly ask it to.
Groupwise has been used here, too. I find it kinda funny when I see "X would like to retract email Y" messages - anything sent to me by Groupwise users is forwarded out of the Groupwise system to an Imap server...
We really need to get off this rock before something dire happens to wipe us out.
Company rules: check your email often, especially when working from home. I check it when I get in to work, then leave the window open on a second display in case I get something from one of the monitoring tools. Luckily I don't often have to worry about my boss asking about email she sends - I work nights, she works days...
I guess I'm just addicted to *not* picking the damn thing up when it rings unexpectedly... :)
Granted, only a small percentage might be able to breed, but in times past that percentage would have been far smaller.
I think the DMCA refers to "bypassing an effective protection method." If it either doesn't exist, or isn't in use, how can it be "effective"??
That neatly cuts out the necessity to pay for any of the current crop of "hits".
One compelling reason for not wearing gloves to "cheat" the sensor would be that, if you were pulled over and tested positive, the judge would be much more likely to hand down a severe sentence. Not only were you driving drunk, but also knowingly took steps to bypass the safety equipment.
If the sensor registers "no hands", it shouldn't allow the car to start. If there was an interlock with a driver seat sensor, it definitely shouldn't start if it detects "butt in seat, no hands".
I remember reading (years ago) about a guy who was pulled over and breath-tested, and turned out to be over the limit. He swore up and down that he hadn't had anything to drink at all. The police locked him up overnight, retested him on the morning and got the same result. Further observation and testing showed that this particular guy had a *natural* blood alcohol level that exceeded the legal limit.
I guess what this shows is that the lower the limits are set, the more likely it is that any random person would be DUI regardless of alcohol consumption.
No, I don't remember where I saw it, other than that it was in a UK newspaper about 20-25 years ago, and it wasn't one of those "sensationalist" papers that prints junk, like "Hitler alive and well, living on the moon!!!!!"
Unless you spill the vodka while driving, there's a very good chance that the actual alcohol would have evaporated by the time you got into your car. As long as the sensor picks up alcohol, and doesn't detect any other non-intoxicating residue, you should be good to go.
Shoot, it's widely believed that Americans were helping to fund the IRA, who would happily bomb civilians in pubs and busy streets in order to free Northern Ireland from the oppressive British. I dunno, maybe they're reliving the War for Independance - sure sucks for the women and children caught in the middle though.
Of course they're thinking rationally. But their definition of rational doesn't necessarily match anyone else's definition. Even an insane person's idea of reality makes perfect sense inside his own head. It's just when that point of view conflicts with everyone else's that he's declared insane.
But does that police Lt have any actual evidence that money from sales of counterfeit goods is really funding terrorism?? If not, the only possible reason to mention terrorism in relation to a case is to prejudice judges and juries in his favor.
And that in a nutshell, describes the whole situation.
Wow - dozens of posts and so far nobody has mentioned the subtle advantages of tin foil lined underwear...
Note I'm not defending this lowlife, just questioning the jump from "encryption" to "criminal intent".
Except that "The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files" (from TFA). I have a truck and a case of beer. Should I be convicted of drunk driving if I've never been stopped and breath-tested?? You'd say yes, apparently - possession of a vehicle & alcohol would prove intent to drive while drunk.
And Defence should have argued that existence of the encryption software proves nothing other than that there was encryption software on the system. It could conceivably have been part of the original system load and not even used by the accused. For example, doing a full install of RedHat very likely installs gpg or some other encryption software.
Assuming they also found encrypted files, that only proves that something was encrypted. Could be bank statements, tv listings, photos of his dog, anything.
I may trust my co-workers, but I'm not sure I trust the out-sourced janitorial staff who come around during the evening when there's nobody else there. I don't know what kind of background check might be done on the janitors, but it's probably not as thorough as that done on employees.
The really stupid thing is that we have a whole working spare phone, but it's AT&T, and the washed'n'dried phone is Cingular. OK, so they're the same damn company now, but they still won't unlock the AT&T phone to use the Cingular SIM card in it.
Problem is, I'm a Unix admin, and the nearest thing there is to Single Sign On on the Unix boxes is SeOS, which is the biggest PITA ever. I think it even *reduces* security, because if an attacker can guess a userid/password, he immediately has access to "sesu" to root. Yep, SeOS takes all the fun out of gaining root access after breaking into a user account. Oh, not all users have sesu access - oh wait, yes we do, because the only users *are* the admins... SeOS has policy servers that allow you to be locked out of whole clouds of servers instantly if you get your password wrong 3 times...
I'm working on my own Single Sign On solution - passwords encrypted in a database and a Tcl/Tk front-end to pop up an xterm and ssh to the target. That way I could run a cron job every 28 days to update every password to some truly random value and I wouldn't have to care about it.
I *wish* we had a single corporate password... I'm registered on over 1800 systems, each with 30-45 day password reset requirements. Some of them remember old password for 180 days, some won't let you reuse the last 6 passwords, some will allow alphanumeric combos that others won't. Passowrd Change Day is a bitch. If it only takes 1 minute to change a password, that's 30 hours...
Write to your congressman. He'll forward your letter to a collating department at the Dept of Homeland Security. The first country/state/banana republic to score a stack 1 inch high (or 1000 complaints, whichever occurs first) wins a free WMD inspection courtesy of Dubya. Use really thick paper for quick results...