I can remember people saying the same thing 20 years ago and it hasn't happened. And, I expect to be making the same kind of comment 20 years from now as well.
My understanding is that once he came to power, many Germans bought a copy because it looked good to have it on display. Very few of them, however, managed to read all of it.
"I'm not stupid enough to have done that" might raise enough reasonable doubt to get you acquitted in a criminal case, although the prosecutor would probably argue that it's just as reasonable to think that you might have done it simply because you didn't think that a jury would find you dumb enough to have tried it. Depending on how good your lawyer was, you might or might not get away with it.
However, as I pointed out in the text you quoted, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Just making the jury think that you might be too clever to have used your own IP for something like this won't work; you have to make them think that somebody else probably did it. My guess as a non-lawyer is that about the only way you can get the jury to agree with you is if you could demonstrate that you were on vacation when the download occurred, and that it had to be somebody else. (Note that if you can do this, you don't, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, need to be able to say who actually downloaded it.)
Remember, we're talking about civil suits here, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. Even if you have an open WiFi hotspot, it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it. In order to win with that defense, you'd have to show that somebody else probably did leach off your connection and download whatever it was. In this case, the judge ruled that the fact that the plaintiffs knew what physical location was using the IP address in question didn't give sufficient probable cause for a warrant. Without a warrant, they can't get any evidence to use in court, so this suit is probably dead in the water.
My thought exactly. If you're going to leak information about your company to a blogger, don't use either your company email account or an account with a service your company owns. Best, of course, is to find a way to get the data home and send it from there using an email address they neither know about nor have access to.
And what do the drivers communicate with? The firmware.
Well yes, of course. However, drivers tend to be OS specific, and can be reloaded fairly easily if infected. TFA is talking about getting malware into the firmware, which has to be OS agnostic and is somewhat harder to disinfect.
No, what you're thinking of is drivers. Firmware is held in non-volatile memory and executed there so that it's ready to be used the moment the device is turned on, and so that it can't easily be modified.
I can remember when there was a jumper on the motherboard that had to be shifted before it was possible to flash the firmware. If all motherboards had that, the only way an attacker could get malware into the BIOS (or whatever other firmware they wanted to target) would be by tricking the user into changing the jumper. Not only that, many of the users who'd be foolish enough to fall for that kind of trick wouldn't have the confidence to open up their box and play with the hardware. Not all, of course, but then, no security measure is 100% effective.
Some Linux distros do that, others don't. I'm not sure, but Ubuntu might. I know that Fedora (using XFCE) doesn't, at least if you don't use their software updater.
I'm not saying that they're not justified in complaining about the rent. However, my point still stands that if they're starving because of high rents, they should either move someplace with lower rents, get a room mate to share the rent, or stop complaining that they can't afford to buy food.
As a Democrat and a Californian, I say Fuck Feinstein.
As a Californian who happens to be a moderate Republican, I say, no thank you; she's not my type. I've been voting against her for decades, but the liberals can't get enough of her.
1) You can't (safely) use the same password in more than one context.
It all depends on how much security you need for a particular application. As an example, do you really need a separate password for each and every blog you follow, and do they all need to be as strong as the one protecting your financial records? Probably not. Yes, knowing how to create, remember and use strong passwords is a Very Good Idea, but not every account you use needs one. My suggestion is to have simple, in-obvious but easy to remember passwords for accounts like that, and save the strong ones for places where you really care about security.
One warning: Unity, with the need to get the mouse into a very small strip down the left side of the screen to get to menus, is not at all "Parkinson's friendly." After several months of struggling with it, my older sister let me install Xfce on her Ubuntu desktop, and she's found it much easier. And, when she got a laptop, we started off with Xubuntu because we knew that was what she wanted. You may not find Xfce as comfortable as we do, (I use it on Fedora.) but if you're setting up a computer for somebody who has difficulties with small, precise hand motions, pick a DE that doesn't require them, and you'll all be better off.
Presumably that author wasn't just defining things cyclically and had defined cardinality elsewhere.
One would think so, but no. When I came across that book I was trying to learn about such things and I'd think that would have remembered it if he had.
What's worst is a teacher who defines a new term in a way that only makes sense if you already understand the concepts behind it. As an example, Rudy Rucker once defined a cardinal number (in a book) as, "A number is a cardinal number if it doesn't share its cardinality with any other number." Now, if you know what a cardinal number is, and what "cardinality" means, that's true. If you don't, as most of the readers of that book wouldn't, it's useless.
Admittedly that may open up a can of worms as those fraudulent researchers sue to get their names off billboards, but that's another issue.
Go ahead; let them sue. Refuse to settle and insist on your day in court. Then, you can prove to the jury that everything on those billboards is true, and with luck, the plaintiff's legal fees will bankrupt them.
IANAL, but I don't think so. Perjury is lying under oath, not taking the oath while intending to violate it. Probably, what happened is that the prosecutor was very careful not to ask any questions that would force the cops to mention the device, and the defense can only cross-examine a witness about things that were brought up during the direct examination.
I live in the city of Camarillo, in Ventura County, California. There are enough coyotes around here that nobody in their right mind lets their cats out at night because they'll get eaten.
Slashdot Mirror
I can remember people saying the same thing 20 years ago and it hasn't happened. And, I expect to be making the same kind of comment 20 years from now as well.
My understanding is that once he came to power, many Germans bought a copy because it looked good to have it on display. Very few of them, however, managed to read all of it.
"I'm not stupid enough to have done that" might raise enough reasonable doubt to get you acquitted in a criminal case, although the prosecutor would probably argue that it's just as reasonable to think that you might have done it simply because you didn't think that a jury would find you dumb enough to have tried it. Depending on how good your lawyer was, you might or might not get away with it.
However, as I pointed out in the text you quoted, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Just making the jury think that you might be too clever to have used your own IP for something like this won't work; you have to make them think that somebody else probably did it. My guess as a non-lawyer is that about the only way you can get the jury to agree with you is if you could demonstrate that you were on vacation when the download occurred, and that it had to be somebody else. (Note that if you can do this, you don't, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, need to be able to say who actually downloaded it.)
Remember, we're talking about civil suits here, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. Even if you have an open WiFi hotspot, it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it. In order to win with that defense, you'd have to show that somebody else probably did leach off your connection and download whatever it was. In this case, the judge ruled that the fact that the plaintiffs knew what physical location was using the IP address in question didn't give sufficient probable cause for a warrant. Without a warrant, they can't get any evidence to use in court, so this suit is probably dead in the water.
Not always. Aviation uses nautical miles, and 120 kilometers = 64.79+ nautical miles.
My thought exactly. If you're going to leak information about your company to a blogger, don't use either your company email account or an account with a service your company owns. Best, of course, is to find a way to get the data home and send it from there using an email address they neither know about nor have access to.
And what do the drivers communicate with? The firmware.
Well yes, of course. However, drivers tend to be OS specific, and can be reloaded fairly easily if infected. TFA is talking about getting malware into the firmware, which has to be OS agnostic and is somewhat harder to disinfect.
No, what you're thinking of is drivers. Firmware is held in non-volatile memory and executed there so that it's ready to be used the moment the device is turned on, and so that it can't easily be modified.
I can remember when there was a jumper on the motherboard that had to be shifted before it was possible to flash the firmware. If all motherboards had that, the only way an attacker could get malware into the BIOS (or whatever other firmware they wanted to target) would be by tricking the user into changing the jumper. Not only that, many of the users who'd be foolish enough to fall for that kind of trick wouldn't have the confidence to open up their box and play with the hardware. Not all, of course, but then, no security measure is 100% effective.
I presume that the Alibaba Group has forty directors running it, and that every single one of them has "sticky fingers."
You might want to follow that link and see what I was suggesting. It's probably not what you think.
Depending on who's in control of the system, you might get your location sent to the OADS for "service."
Some Linux distros do that, others don't. I'm not sure, but Ubuntu might. I know that Fedora (using XFCE) doesn't, at least if you don't use their software updater.
I'm not saying that they're not justified in complaining about the rent. However, my point still stands that if they're starving because of high rents, they should either move someplace with lower rents, get a room mate to share the rent, or stop complaining that they can't afford to buy food.
If the place is too expensive for the starving artist, then they should move some place where it isn't.
One thing for sure, if they're starving and won't move to someplace with lower rents, they have no reason to complain about starving.
As a Democrat and a Californian, I say Fuck Feinstein.
As a Californian who happens to be a moderate Republican, I say, no thank you; she's not my type. I've been voting against her for decades, but the liberals can't get enough of her.
1) You can't (safely) use the same password in more than one context.
It all depends on how much security you need for a particular application. As an example, do you really need a separate password for each and every blog you follow, and do they all need to be as strong as the one protecting your financial records? Probably not. Yes, knowing how to create, remember and use strong passwords is a Very Good Idea, but not every account you use needs one. My suggestion is to have simple, in-obvious but easy to remember passwords for accounts like that, and save the strong ones for places where you really care about security.
One warning: Unity, with the need to get the mouse into a very small strip down the left side of the screen to get to menus, is not at all "Parkinson's friendly." After several months of struggling with it, my older sister let me install Xfce on her Ubuntu desktop, and she's found it much easier. And, when she got a laptop, we started off with Xubuntu because we knew that was what she wanted. You may not find Xfce as comfortable as we do, (I use it on Fedora.) but if you're setting up a computer for somebody who has difficulties with small, precise hand motions, pick a DE that doesn't require them, and you'll all be better off.
In Soviet Russia, asteroids pulverize you!
Presumably that author wasn't just defining things cyclically and had defined cardinality elsewhere.
One would think so, but no. When I came across that book I was trying to learn about such things and I'd think that would have remembered it if he had.
It's been decades since I read that book, but unless my memory's worse that I think, he didn't define it at all.
What's worst is a teacher who defines a new term in a way that only makes sense if you already understand the concepts behind it. As an example, Rudy Rucker once defined a cardinal number (in a book) as, "A number is a cardinal number if it doesn't share its cardinality with any other number." Now, if you know what a cardinal number is, and what "cardinality" means, that's true. If you don't, as most of the readers of that book wouldn't, it's useless.
Admittedly that may open up a can of worms as those fraudulent researchers sue to get their names off billboards, but that's another issue.
Go ahead; let them sue. Refuse to settle and insist on your day in court. Then, you can prove to the jury that everything on those billboards is true, and with luck, the plaintiff's legal fees will bankrupt them.
IANAL, but I don't think so. Perjury is lying under oath, not taking the oath while intending to violate it. Probably, what happened is that the prosecutor was very careful not to ask any questions that would force the cops to mention the device, and the defense can only cross-examine a witness about things that were brought up during the direct examination.
I live in the city of Camarillo, in Ventura County, California. There are enough coyotes around here that nobody in their right mind lets their cats out at night because they'll get eaten.