So, if they are told they can't indicate they received an NSL, and there is otherwise no proof the NSL was delivered due to lack of evidence aside from whatever the FBI has, then if someone were to leak that they received an NSL (or any other form of acknowledgement to this effect) then this by itself would require some further action by the FBI to arrest, rub out, or otherwise eliminate the person under some other reason to avoid revealing the contents or existence of the NSL?
It seems like being sent to unspeakable places is really the only option (scary, I know) since FPMITA (federal pound me...) would require a reasonably clear case against the person, and therefore require the FBI to cough up whatever reason they can? I know I know, they will just make shit up...but still.
A patent only matters if those who you are trying to protect against are under (or cave or submit) to the jurisdiction of the region in which the patent is held. Unless you file a patent in every single industrialized nation for something as significant as this, and the idea is to make money, the better option is to keep it a trade secret so you don't need to disclose any details that those outside of the jurisdiction of the patent don't have the details handed to them.
It's more likely that google is just more open and honest about how they use the information they have about you. They admit openly that the main reason for their success is their "marketing" ability. Customer/client information is a valuable commodity, and the marketers at any corporation you deal with would be fools to not monetize the information they manage to collect.
This is the same reason facebook pisses me off with their recent changes, but google+ doesn't really bother me.
Why use 10 year old software to demo a "Windows replacement"? If a successful demo only works because it is old software, that somewhat speaks volumes.
Simple solution: real time (or updated hourly) traffic stats for the ISP backbone connection. Allow users unlimited use (unmetered) during the times when traffic is significantly less. As others have said, if the hardware is provisioned, then as long as it is not being taxed to the limit when you want to use it, then you shouldn't really be charged anything significant for using it.
And yet, the single most basic thing you can do to protect your data gets overlooked by hundreds of millions of people, because it's just too burdensome to drag and drop from "My documents" to "My external drive".
And how many people that do use an external drive actually unplug it after the fact?
0.18 PPT vs 400 PPM 0.18 PPT vs 400000000 PPM 0.00000018 PPM vs 400 PPM
One of them is deceptive, the other 2 provide proper context. Even being 7000 times more powerful doesn't make up for 6 orders of magnitude in concentration.
I fail to see why the insurance company would care, and if they did care what legal theory they would use to deny the claim.
Simple: you broke the law. Therefore, the insurance company doesn't have to pay out. Most policies say they are null and void if the vehicle is involved in any illegal activity.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sure there's a crime in there. "Obstruction of Justice" sounds like a good catch-all.
Leading to "Obstruction of Orifice"
Those are just the hidden packages!
So, if they are told they can't indicate they received an NSL, and there is otherwise no proof the NSL was delivered due to lack of evidence aside from whatever the FBI has, then if someone were to leak that they received an NSL (or any other form of acknowledgement to this effect) then this by itself would require some further action by the FBI to arrest, rub out, or otherwise eliminate the person under some other reason to avoid revealing the contents or existence of the NSL?
It seems like being sent to unspeakable places is really the only option (scary, I know) since FPMITA (federal pound me...) would require a reasonably clear case against the person, and therefore require the FBI to cough up whatever reason they can? I know I know, they will just make shit up...but still.
"I thought I was on our work Facebook, not the regular one. Sorry, it will never happen again."
http://xkcd.com/619/
Drug use could motivate theft though...just sayin'
Why isn't that referenced? E2E encryption eliminates this, assuming the user is not an idiot.
A patent only matters if those who you are trying to protect against are under (or cave or submit) to the jurisdiction of the region in which the patent is held. Unless you file a patent in every single industrialized nation for something as significant as this, and the idea is to make money, the better option is to keep it a trade secret so you don't need to disclose any details that those outside of the jurisdiction of the patent don't have the details handed to them.
It's pronounced "nookular".
And Doom went to my little league games!
damn, no mod points...+1 Insightful and +5 Funny. You have to know Quebec language laws to get this. Unfortunately, some might mark it Troll/Flamebait
It's more likely that google is just more open and honest about how they use the information they have about you. They admit openly that the main reason for their success is their "marketing" ability. Customer/client information is a valuable commodity, and the marketers at any corporation you deal with would be fools to not monetize the information they manage to collect.
This is the same reason facebook pisses me off with their recent changes, but google+ doesn't really bother me.
I also suspect the newer UI APIs aren't fully implemented, so, perhaps... indeed only the old software actually works.
I know you are just guessing, but my counter-comment is: so they have caught up to the UI API from 10 years ago?
Why use 10 year old software to demo a "Windows replacement"? If a successful demo only works because it is old software, that somewhat speaks volumes.
This. A failed drive is a failed drive, regardless of who it comes from and whether the issue is known or not and publicly admitted.
Simple solution: real time (or updated hourly) traffic stats for the ISP backbone connection. Allow users unlimited use (unmetered) during the times when traffic is significantly less. As others have said, if the hardware is provisioned, then as long as it is not being taxed to the limit when you want to use it, then you shouldn't really be charged anything significant for using it.
Teksavvy does this on DSL in Canada.
Define useful...I don't think that word means what you think it means.
And yet, the single most basic thing you can do to protect your data gets overlooked by hundreds of millions of people, because it's just too burdensome to drag and drop from "My documents" to "My external drive".
And how many people that do use an external drive actually unplug it after the fact?
400000000 PPM should have said 400000000 PPT
Obligatory xckd
http://xkcd.com/558/
0.18 PPT vs 400 PPM
0.18 PPT vs 400000000 PPM
0.00000018 PPM vs 400 PPM
One of them is deceptive, the other 2 provide proper context. Even being 7000 times more powerful doesn't make up for 6 orders of magnitude in concentration.
I fail to see why the insurance company would care, and if they did care what legal theory they would use to deny the claim.
Simple: you broke the law. Therefore, the insurance company doesn't have to pay out. Most policies say they are null and void if the vehicle is involved in any illegal activity.
except that you would also block other Environmental microwave and RF thereby impacting the result.
It is if you review it and become "sufficiently familiar" with the work. Ultimately the second you sign off you become responsible for the work.
This of course, depends on where the license is obtained and the work is performed.
So, like the Jaws add in Back to the Future....?
Mixing 1000 and 1024 just made my day. Well done.