Exactly. Talk to the drive and *not* with a vendor-provided diagnostic. It still amazes me how folks have no problem with programming drive firmware to report "all is good" when, in fact, the drive is nearly dead.
anecdotal, but my experience is that many ADHD diagnosis are a result of "I have a lot of money, but no time to spend with my family which has resulted in acting out". Its a diagnosis given by a doctor for another doctor's kids. Except for when its a lawyer's kid.
And my view is skewed based on how I've encountered most ADHD diagnosed kids (a camp for them, which charged those "I have money but no time" parents a good sum of money to get the kids out of the house over the summer. Yeah, there are other cases, but by far the majority of ADHD diagnoses I've encountered would not hold up to a rigorous examination. Its an easy diagnosis that is all pluses for the doctors and pharmaceutical companies. At least it is in the US.
an insightful post by a fan boy? Paid shill? Take your pick, but if you were paid they need to find better shills. Show me a "top of the line seagate drive" and I'll show you a drive that is expensive and has as high of a failure rate as any other. Statistics to back that up? Bah, who needs statistics.
But at least Seagate never lied about having a stupid bug in their firmware that would brick drives randomly on startup, that was hitachi, right?
And at least they never released firmware updates that simply bricked the drives, then replaced the buggered firmware without updating the version number or acknowledging the screwup, that was fujitsu, wasn't it?
you have discovered the joy of vendor supplied diagnostic software. It is all designed to deny failure/replacement.
I had a dell system running horribly badly. I discovered the cause: the drive had wide spread errors and had remapped a good section of data that happened to be used by a VM. Run the VM and redirected reads brought the system to a crawl. It was somewhere in the thousands of reallocated sectors with thousands more pending and millions of redirected reads. SMART claimed the drive was good, all while providing the data to show it was not. The drive passed dell diagnostics with flying colors.
But I'm not here to pick on Dell and their "diagnostic" software. I've noticed that bundled drives all seem to have firmware that always gives a pass to the "simple" SMART test. The only test I have ever seen Apple's diagnostics fail was the one for a modem (most of the systems I supported were G3 desktops that did not have a modem). If the system can power on, it can pass the "test".
However, my experience with dying drives does not match yours. I've got one that developed a small number of bad sectors all at once and has remained stable for years after that. I'm not too worried by a single bad sector unless it is paired with other warning signs, like a number of sectors pending re-allocation.
at least it is *possible* for them to consider your case and benefit you by release. Its kinda hard to release someone from an already executed death sentence.
And there is even greater reluctance to consider such cases due to the bad press it generates for state authorized killing and the prosecution that achieved it. This was an actual argument used in a case: "a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution] [http://www.truthinjustice.org/DNA-DP.htm]
Some people don't want to look the truth in the face.
too bad DNA testing (and other "advanced forensics") 1) isn't used in every case due to cost and 2) isn't always possible (you have to have something at the scene to get DNA from, for example)
You also might want to look into the basis of DNA testing and how that matters to its various uses (paternal testing, personal identification) and the implication that non-coding (sometimes called "junk") DNA is increasingly found to not be "junk", merely that its utility was not initially apparent.
There's a difference between "I expect them to spy on us for their benefit and our detriment" and "I want them to spy on us and in fact I like it". Quite a bit of ground between those two. Maybe you are too bent on this supposed dichotomy, but there is a lot of difference between "I expect our spy agencies to spy on other countries for our benefit and their detriment" and "I expect our spy agencies to spy on us for their benefit and our detriment".
And I think you *do* get it. Or are you arguing that we should disband our military? After all, their fundamental purpose is to "kill representative of other countries and take property from other countries". Yes, it rarely is stated that bluntly, but a military is used to take control of territory (and inherently what resources that territory contains). Even defensive usage can be expressed in this way as otherwise you are ceding territory to another state when they invade and take it (and its resources) from you.
But, being in support of *our* having a military to conduct military operations *against* other states does *not* mean support using *our* military to conduct operations *against* ourselves. In fact, domestic military operations are forbidden in the US (there is a touchy area about using troops in support of domestic issues because it can be grey -- it is okay to use troops to help put out a forest fire, right?)
So, to be *consistent* with your anti-spying argument you must be in favor of disbanding our military. Are you?
a good start, but your need to justify legalizing weapons make you look silly when you assert that nobody could stop a couple of guys with knives, but in the grand ole USA they coulda kicked da shit outta dem. Really? So, only in the US is someone brave enough to assault another person? Is that what you are trying to say. You forgot to include the part about shooting the knife wielding guys with their duly authorized concealed carry hand guns.
The hardline rhetoric is silly enough in its own right, but when you weaken it by recognizing that possession of firearms (or any weapon) is not necessary for resistance its even worse. Is it intended as a jingoist statement without meaningful content?
I'd rather not live in a society that is so petrified of itself that its members feel a need to constantly carry handguns for use on other members of the society. Regretfully, it sure seems like your POV is winning as the "gun rights" nuts insist you have to carry and kill to protect yourself while the "gun restriction" nuts insist that firearms are too scary for anyone other than law enforcement to possess. Both sides convey their message through fear.
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, this "liberal" owns multiple weapons ranging from those used up close and personal to killing at a distance. That's what weapons are *for* but it doesn't mean it is the only way that they can be *used*. Just like a screwdriver isn't *for* killing, but they can certainly be *used* in such a fashion.
maybe I shouldn't bother, but your statement "Allowing men to marry as many women as they can afford" betrays you lack of knowledge about Islam. I'll give you a hint: that practice is what is forbidden by Islam.
Re: It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 1
now you're betraying your bias. The number of spaces is not a fixed factor in Python so your comment is neither here nor there (though in practice the variation is almost entirely 2, 4 or 8 with most people using four spaces -- and that is irrespective of language, Python doesn't even enter into it). Any language with an unless statement is deeply flawed? Right...
I'd not seen that from Guido, but it makes a lot of sense. What you wrote sounds like: 1) you never wrote any significant amount of python code, 2) you either haven't written any significant amount of code in brace-style languages or are overlooking "its fun to guess where that code block start/ends", and 3) like using tabs.
Tabs are simply not a good choice for indentation *regardless* of language because there is no standard for how to use them. If all you do is write personal code it doesn't matter that much, but once you enter the realm of programming with others these things start to count. As does where the braces go. Some programmers are pretty petty about what are, really, minor details and love to squabble. But once you rule out the basic usability constraints (1 space indents are too little, 32 space indents are excessive) its just a matter of agreeing to conform on details.
If you want to be taken seriously claiming Python has a major design flaw you'll have to do better than this. Perhaps "any language that requires a NOP for an empty block" would do better (not that I'd agree, but it beats the heck out of your complaint about unless...). One really wonders if you've ever used Python or just fall into the "Python is bad because it uses white space, ooooo".
exactly this. I was astounded when I discovered PHP and the world of vulnerabilities it introduced. Using PHP before 5 is just not a good idea, and that is a very sad statement to make about a *language*. I use PHP at times (it is scary fast to develop in), but in general I prefer other languages.
or, we could try to educate people about how ridiculous it is that PHP is the only language to have non-stop vulnerabilities *in the language* and, even worse, all the cool things they are going to install to go with it are riddled with even more vulnerabilities, to the extent that running a site in php is next best thing to just posting site credentials online.
Yes, the reason vulnerabilities are so prevalent in modules is because PHP is freaking scary easy to develop so practically anyone can do so, even (and especially) if they have no clue what secure programming means. But it doesn't change the basic fact.
Yes, a properly developed site using PHP *can* be as secure as one developed using a different language. But that generally isn't the case -- people generally choose PHP because they have no clue. I'm *not* saying everyone who uses PHP has no clue (that is definitely not the case), but for the clueless, PHP is the platform of choice.
A good example is wordpress. Even excluding wordpress vulnerabilities (which seem to have gotten harder to find), hardly anyone just installs wordpress, they install numerous plugins. And the vulnerabilities multiply.
So when it comes to hosting sites, allowing PHP means you are going to have slap-dash insecure sites that constantly get hacked. And that creates overhead. It is more of a problem (by definition) than only permitting static content. It is more of a problem (in practice) than permitting dynamic content in other languages.
So when I say "educate people" I don't mean someone who knows how to use PHP safely (insofar as that is possible for any language...), rather I mean the ones who want to have joomla because they want a site with CMS because they don't understand how *everything* they are going to do could have been done easily in any reasonable tool that generates static pages.
I don't have time to deal with the constant hacking of PHP driven sites. If my employer wants that, they need to employ more people. This requires educating them, including how the entire PHP ecosystem is fraught with vulnerabilities.
Re: It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 1
i don't think that really qualifies as a major design flaw. For example, we don't use python (rather, perl, ugh) but the requirement is that code follow standard formatting. Which is a certain number of spaces per indent level. No tabs. My point is that this "major design flaw" wouldn't even come up if we switched languages to python. Its already covered by our coding requirements.
The gist of your post that gambling as entertainment isn't bad is fine. I don't gamble, ever, unless its a sure thing. In which case it isn't gambling. But I know people who do. I got drug into a casino for someone to lose money on the slots. I spent money on entertainment as well (arcade games for the kids while mommy/daddy lose their earnings), though it was rather less. OTOH I spend rather more money on other forms of entertainment. As long as it is just a budgeted expense there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it.
Funny thing was my companion went on afterwards about the money they'd won. I was surprised, but in talking further it transpired that the $15 won was for spending $50. That's right, it wasn't a loss of $35, it was a win of $15. Hmmm... something doesn't add up.
This psychological imbalance is part of what lays the foundation for a gambling addiction. Once you throw in a dose of desparation it becomes clearer why and how some people get addicted.
what is highly unusual is that the person who was suspended is high ranking. It may not be apparent to someone without military experience, but the higher the rank the more that gets overlooked. If you get caught with marijuana it makes a real difference whether you are a private or an officer (and the circumstances of the catch). NCOs cover for each other, which some take advantage of.
Not to say that officers are immune. There was wholesale misappropriation of funds at one deployment and a low ranking officer blew the whistle. Heads rolled, but it was not publicized in any way.
one of the few cases of someone I know having been denied a clearance was due to lying about smoking dope. They don't really care if you once smoked, but they do care if you lie about it.
They care if you are hiding something so it can get tough if they think you are. Which is what your experience sounds like. It was mine as well and, when you they won't say what they think is going on it can be hard to convince someone that they're wrong and you aren't hiding anything. But it can be done (and I finally figured out what they thought was wrong -- my background was "too clean", they just didn't believe that someone as goody two shoes as I was could exist).
For extra bonus points I know people who received clearances despite rather more extreme past activities that would normally bar someone from obtaining a clearance. The "trick" is to convince investigators that it was in the past, you have moved on, and it has no hold over you. And pass a poly. Definitely have to be able to do that. (Not that doing so is particularly tough, but not everyone knows that.)
To get a clearance follow the cardinal rules: don't lie, don't omit.
not a strong contradiction, but the courts do seem upset by government lies and misrepresentation. Not just the secret court (which chastised the NSA), but there was a rather different case where federal agents went on a fishing expedition [http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf] and were chastised as well.
This gives me *some* hope. While clearly not all in the judiciary care, some clearly do.
fortunately, even those who are not blessed with 51% of a brain are still afforded protection under the law. It isn't legal to murder someone who "only has half a brain" and illegal wiretapping is illegal, no matter if someone built a business around it.
That isn't to say that what google is doing is illegal. That isn't what the judge has said either. Rather, the judge has said the case isn't simple and straightfoward enough to be obvious as to its conclusion and so can proceed to trial. But anyone with half a brain would know that.
scanning the content? or meta data. But it helps to actually read the law. One of the exceptions provided in the wiretap act that makes it *not* a felony is if it is necessary to rendition of the service. The telephone company must be able to process the routing information (desired destination) to route the call. They do not need to monitor the contents of it. Similarly, even though google may find it *valuable* to them to monitor the contents of emails that does not make it a necessity for rendition of service.
Another example to put an even finer point on it: when calls were manually switched it was a fact of life that an operator would hear any chatter on the line before they unplugged. It might be hard to grasp now, but they were connected to the caller, completed the circuit to the recipient, and then disconnected themselves. Whatever they heard while completing the transaction was eavesdropping -- but it was also necessary incident to the rendition of service. At one time it was customary to wait a short time after being connected to give the operator time to disconnect.
as you point out, there is a lot of complexity to this. Does the wiretap act apply? Its an important question because *by default* a wiretap is a felony and you have to fall into an exception for it to be legal. The wiretap act governs interception of *content*, but even the subject line of an email is (legally speaking) content, not meta data.
This is why the judge can't make a simple ruling without hearing more evidence. That is, in the context of an actual trial.
If the legal system was anywhere remotely as simple and straightforward and streamlined as it is portrayed in the press, movies and television shows then things would be different. But in reality the legal system is a tangled mess of partially contradictary rules.
To be fair to the people commenting here, it is rarely reported accurately in the media. A few years ago there was a slashdot article about a company being required to provide the contents of ram on their servers, or some such silliness. The truth of the matter was much more reasonable. There are no explicit laws governing data retention (except for all the laws that do, in at least partially conflicting/contradictory ways) so when a party is hit with an ediscovery (basically, a requirement to retain information preparatory to legal proceedings) it isn't always clear what they can be required to retain. But there are some rules of thumb, such as "if you have it at the time of discovery then you must retain it" and "if it is customary or normal for business then you must have it". The case I referred to was one where the company in question decided to not retain logs -- none -- which is clearly not customary and a certain amount of log data is required for business operations. I don't recall all the details of the case, but the gist of it is that they were penalized by the judge for not retaining data that is customary and normal for business, and was clearly an attempt to destroy evidence (as a matter of policy).
Whether its webserver logs, print audit trails or something else -- it pays to know what is customary and usual. Because if you deviate too far from that you can be held accountable for destruction of evidence.
It isn't a ruling against google. It is a decision to let the case proceed. Google hasn't lost anything, other than their lawyers will have to do something to earn their keep.
This is a common problem where peoples apparent ignorance of the legal system gets in the way. Google argued there didn't need to be a trial because what they were being accused of (wiretap violations) were inapplicable under the circumstances. Essentially the judge said that isn't a given so the trial to determine (in part) whether or not google violated wiretap act will proceed.
This kind of pretrial activity makes a lot of sense. Why go through a long, drawn out murder trial when you can readily demonstrate that the person supposedly murdered is, in fact, alive?
The judges decision is not a ruling and does not mean scanning is necessarily under the wiretap. All it really means is that there's enough complexity to the situation to require a full hearing in court. That's it, nothing more.
Exploring this further, it appears that someone doing this casually may think they have a lock screen bypass because they go through the steps and get full access to any application. The key here is the behavior of locking the phone: is the passcode immediately required or not? If testing this you have to either set that to immediately or wait long enough to ensure it isn't still just "swipe to unlock".
On another note, some combination of factors resulted in no access to the quick swipe apps. Could still swipe to get the camera from its separate point
Slashdot Mirror
Shame I don't have mod points (they just expired). Please mod parent up.
Exactly. Talk to the drive and *not* with a vendor-provided diagnostic. It still amazes me how folks have no problem with programming drive firmware to report "all is good" when, in fact, the drive is nearly dead.
anecdotal, but my experience is that many ADHD diagnosis are a result of "I have a lot of money, but no time to spend with my family which has resulted in acting out". Its a diagnosis given by a doctor for another doctor's kids. Except for when its a lawyer's kid.
And my view is skewed based on how I've encountered most ADHD diagnosed kids (a camp for them, which charged those "I have money but no time" parents a good sum of money to get the kids out of the house over the summer. Yeah, there are other cases, but by far the majority of ADHD diagnoses I've encountered would not hold up to a rigorous examination. Its an easy diagnosis that is all pluses for the doctors and pharmaceutical companies. At least it is in the US.
an insightful post by a fan boy? Paid shill? Take your pick, but if you were paid they need to find better shills. Show me a "top of the line seagate drive" and I'll show you a drive that is expensive and has as high of a failure rate as any other. Statistics to back that up? Bah, who needs statistics.
But at least Seagate never lied about having a stupid bug in their firmware that would brick drives randomly on startup, that was hitachi, right?
And at least they never released firmware updates that simply bricked the drives, then replaced the buggered firmware without updating the version number or acknowledging the screwup, that was fujitsu, wasn't it?
you have discovered the joy of vendor supplied diagnostic software. It is all designed to deny failure/replacement.
I had a dell system running horribly badly. I discovered the cause: the drive had wide spread errors and had remapped a good section of data that happened to be used by a VM. Run the VM and redirected reads brought the system to a crawl. It was somewhere in the thousands of reallocated sectors with thousands more pending and millions of redirected reads. SMART claimed the drive was good, all while providing the data to show it was not. The drive passed dell diagnostics with flying colors.
But I'm not here to pick on Dell and their "diagnostic" software. I've noticed that bundled drives all seem to have firmware that always gives a pass to the "simple" SMART test. The only test I have ever seen Apple's diagnostics fail was the one for a modem (most of the systems I supported were G3 desktops that did not have a modem). If the system can power on, it can pass the "test".
However, my experience with dying drives does not match yours. I've got one that developed a small number of bad sectors all at once and has remained stable for years after that. I'm not too worried by a single bad sector unless it is paired with other warning signs, like a number of sectors pending re-allocation.
at least it is *possible* for them to consider your case and benefit you by release. Its kinda hard to release someone from an already executed death sentence.
And there is even greater reluctance to consider such cases due to the bad press it generates for state authorized killing and the prosecution that achieved it. This was an actual argument used in a case: "a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution] [http://www.truthinjustice.org/DNA-DP.htm]
Some people don't want to look the truth in the face.
too bad DNA testing (and other "advanced forensics") 1) isn't used in every case due to cost and 2) isn't always possible (you have to have something at the scene to get DNA from, for example)
You also might want to look into the basis of DNA testing and how that matters to its various uses (paternal testing, personal identification) and the implication that non-coding (sometimes called "junk") DNA is increasingly found to not be "junk", merely that its utility was not initially apparent.
Hmmm....
There's a difference between "I expect them to spy on us for their benefit and our detriment" and "I want them to spy on us and in fact I like it". Quite a bit of ground between those two. Maybe you are too bent on this supposed dichotomy, but there is a lot of difference between "I expect our spy agencies to spy on other countries for our benefit and their detriment" and "I expect our spy agencies to spy on us for their benefit and our detriment".
And I think you *do* get it. Or are you arguing that we should disband our military? After all, their fundamental purpose is to "kill representative of other countries and take property from other countries". Yes, it rarely is stated that bluntly, but a military is used to take control of territory (and inherently what resources that territory contains). Even defensive usage can be expressed in this way as otherwise you are ceding territory to another state when they invade and take it (and its resources) from you.
But, being in support of *our* having a military to conduct military operations *against* other states does *not* mean support using *our* military to conduct operations *against* ourselves. In fact, domestic military operations are forbidden in the US (there is a touchy area about using troops in support of domestic issues because it can be grey -- it is okay to use troops to help put out a forest fire, right?)
So, to be *consistent* with your anti-spying argument you must be in favor of disbanding our military. Are you?
yes, the paralysis of total information awareness. When you have enough data the utility of indicators actually goes down.
a good start, but your need to justify legalizing weapons make you look silly when you assert that nobody could stop a couple of guys with knives, but in the grand ole USA they coulda kicked da shit outta dem. Really? So, only in the US is someone brave enough to assault another person? Is that what you are trying to say. You forgot to include the part about shooting the knife wielding guys with their duly authorized concealed carry hand guns.
The hardline rhetoric is silly enough in its own right, but when you weaken it by recognizing that possession of firearms (or any weapon) is not necessary for resistance its even worse. Is it intended as a jingoist statement without meaningful content?
I'd rather not live in a society that is so petrified of itself that its members feel a need to constantly carry handguns for use on other members of the society. Regretfully, it sure seems like your POV is winning as the "gun rights" nuts insist you have to carry and kill to protect yourself while the "gun restriction" nuts insist that firearms are too scary for anyone other than law enforcement to possess. Both sides convey their message through fear.
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, this "liberal" owns multiple weapons ranging from those used up close and personal to killing at a distance. That's what weapons are *for* but it doesn't mean it is the only way that they can be *used*. Just like a screwdriver isn't *for* killing, but they can certainly be *used* in such a fashion.
maybe I shouldn't bother, but your statement "Allowing men to marry as many women as they can afford" betrays you lack of knowledge about Islam. I'll give you a hint: that practice is what is forbidden by Islam.
now you're betraying your bias. The number of spaces is not a fixed factor in Python so your comment is neither here nor there (though in practice the variation is almost entirely 2, 4 or 8 with most people using four spaces -- and that is irrespective of language, Python doesn't even enter into it). Any language with an unless statement is deeply flawed? Right...
I'd not seen that from Guido, but it makes a lot of sense. What you wrote sounds like: 1) you never wrote any significant amount of python code, 2) you either haven't written any significant amount of code in brace-style languages or are overlooking "its fun to guess where that code block start/ends", and 3) like using tabs.
Tabs are simply not a good choice for indentation *regardless* of language because there is no standard for how to use them. If all you do is write personal code it doesn't matter that much, but once you enter the realm of programming with others these things start to count. As does where the braces go. Some programmers are pretty petty about what are, really, minor details and love to squabble. But once you rule out the basic usability constraints (1 space indents are too little, 32 space indents are excessive) its just a matter of agreeing to conform on details.
If you want to be taken seriously claiming Python has a major design flaw you'll have to do better than this. Perhaps "any language that requires a NOP for an empty block" would do better (not that I'd agree, but it beats the heck out of your complaint about unless...). One really wonders if you've ever used Python or just fall into the "Python is bad because it uses white space, ooooo".
exactly this. I was astounded when I discovered PHP and the world of vulnerabilities it introduced. Using PHP before 5 is just not a good idea, and that is a very sad statement to make about a *language*. I use PHP at times (it is scary fast to develop in), but in general I prefer other languages.
or, we could try to educate people about how ridiculous it is that PHP is the only language to have non-stop vulnerabilities *in the language* and, even worse, all the cool things they are going to install to go with it are riddled with even more vulnerabilities, to the extent that running a site in php is next best thing to just posting site credentials online.
Yes, the reason vulnerabilities are so prevalent in modules is because PHP is freaking scary easy to develop so practically anyone can do so, even (and especially) if they have no clue what secure programming means. But it doesn't change the basic fact.
Yes, a properly developed site using PHP *can* be as secure as one developed using a different language. But that generally isn't the case -- people generally choose PHP because they have no clue. I'm *not* saying everyone who uses PHP has no clue (that is definitely not the case), but for the clueless, PHP is the platform of choice.
A good example is wordpress. Even excluding wordpress vulnerabilities (which seem to have gotten harder to find), hardly anyone just installs wordpress, they install numerous plugins. And the vulnerabilities multiply.
So when it comes to hosting sites, allowing PHP means you are going to have slap-dash insecure sites that constantly get hacked. And that creates overhead. It is more of a problem (by definition) than only permitting static content. It is more of a problem (in practice) than permitting dynamic content in other languages.
So when I say "educate people" I don't mean someone who knows how to use PHP safely (insofar as that is possible for any language...), rather I mean the ones who want to have joomla because they want a site with CMS because they don't understand how *everything* they are going to do could have been done easily in any reasonable tool that generates static pages.
I don't have time to deal with the constant hacking of PHP driven sites. If my employer wants that, they need to employ more people. This requires educating them, including how the entire PHP ecosystem is fraught with vulnerabilities.
i don't think that really qualifies as a major design flaw. For example, we don't use python (rather, perl, ugh) but the requirement is that code follow standard formatting. Which is a certain number of spaces per indent level. No tabs. My point is that this "major design flaw" wouldn't even come up if we switched languages to python. Its already covered by our coding requirements.
The gist of your post that gambling as entertainment isn't bad is fine. I don't gamble, ever, unless its a sure thing. In which case it isn't gambling. But I know people who do. I got drug into a casino for someone to lose money on the slots. I spent money on entertainment as well (arcade games for the kids while mommy/daddy lose their earnings), though it was rather less. OTOH I spend rather more money on other forms of entertainment. As long as it is just a budgeted expense there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it.
Funny thing was my companion went on afterwards about the money they'd won. I was surprised, but in talking further it transpired that the $15 won was for spending $50. That's right, it wasn't a loss of $35, it was a win of $15. Hmmm... something doesn't add up.
This psychological imbalance is part of what lays the foundation for a gambling addiction. Once you throw in a dose of desparation it becomes clearer why and how some people get addicted.
what is highly unusual is that the person who was suspended is high ranking. It may not be apparent to someone without military experience, but the higher the rank the more that gets overlooked. If you get caught with marijuana it makes a real difference whether you are a private or an officer (and the circumstances of the catch). NCOs cover for each other, which some take advantage of.
Not to say that officers are immune. There was wholesale misappropriation of funds at one deployment and a low ranking officer blew the whistle. Heads rolled, but it was not publicized in any way.
one of the few cases of someone I know having been denied a clearance was due to lying about smoking dope. They don't really care if you once smoked, but they do care if you lie about it.
They care if you are hiding something so it can get tough if they think you are. Which is what your experience sounds like. It was mine as well and, when you they won't say what they think is going on it can be hard to convince someone that they're wrong and you aren't hiding anything. But it can be done (and I finally figured out what they thought was wrong -- my background was "too clean", they just didn't believe that someone as goody two shoes as I was could exist).
For extra bonus points I know people who received clearances despite rather more extreme past activities that would normally bar someone from obtaining a clearance. The "trick" is to convince investigators that it was in the past, you have moved on, and it has no hold over you. And pass a poly. Definitely have to be able to do that. (Not that doing so is particularly tough, but not everyone knows that.)
To get a clearance follow the cardinal rules: don't lie, don't omit.
not a strong contradiction, but the courts do seem upset by government lies and misrepresentation. Not just the secret court (which chastised the NSA), but there was a rather different case where federal agents went on a fishing expedition [http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf] and were chastised as well.
This gives me *some* hope. While clearly not all in the judiciary care, some clearly do.
this is funny, sure, but insightful? moderators? wtf?
fortunately, even those who are not blessed with 51% of a brain are still afforded protection under the law. It isn't legal to murder someone who "only has half a brain" and illegal wiretapping is illegal, no matter if someone built a business around it.
That isn't to say that what google is doing is illegal. That isn't what the judge has said either. Rather, the judge has said the case isn't simple and straightfoward enough to be obvious as to its conclusion and so can proceed to trial. But anyone with half a brain would know that.
scanning the content? or meta data. But it helps to actually read the law. One of the exceptions provided in the wiretap act that makes it *not* a felony is if it is necessary to rendition of the service. The telephone company must be able to process the routing information (desired destination) to route the call. They do not need to monitor the contents of it. Similarly, even though google may find it *valuable* to them to monitor the contents of emails that does not make it a necessity for rendition of service.
Another example to put an even finer point on it: when calls were manually switched it was a fact of life that an operator would hear any chatter on the line before they unplugged. It might be hard to grasp now, but they were connected to the caller, completed the circuit to the recipient, and then disconnected themselves. Whatever they heard while completing the transaction was eavesdropping -- but it was also necessary incident to the rendition of service. At one time it was customary to wait a short time after being connected to give the operator time to disconnect.
as you point out, there is a lot of complexity to this. Does the wiretap act apply? Its an important question because *by default* a wiretap is a felony and you have to fall into an exception for it to be legal. The wiretap act governs interception of *content*, but even the subject line of an email is (legally speaking) content, not meta data.
This is why the judge can't make a simple ruling without hearing more evidence. That is, in the context of an actual trial.
If the legal system was anywhere remotely as simple and straightforward and streamlined as it is portrayed in the press, movies and television shows then things would be different. But in reality the legal system is a tangled mess of partially contradictary rules.
To be fair to the people commenting here, it is rarely reported accurately in the media. A few years ago there was a slashdot article about a company being required to provide the contents of ram on their servers, or some such silliness. The truth of the matter was much more reasonable. There are no explicit laws governing data retention (except for all the laws that do, in at least partially conflicting/contradictory ways) so when a party is hit with an ediscovery (basically, a requirement to retain information preparatory to legal proceedings) it isn't always clear what they can be required to retain. But there are some rules of thumb, such as "if you have it at the time of discovery then you must retain it" and "if it is customary or normal for business then you must have it". The case I referred to was one where the company in question decided to not retain logs -- none -- which is clearly not customary and a certain amount of log data is required for business operations. I don't recall all the details of the case, but the gist of it is that they were penalized by the judge for not retaining data that is customary and normal for business, and was clearly an attempt to destroy evidence (as a matter of policy).
Whether its webserver logs, print audit trails or something else -- it pays to know what is customary and usual. Because if you deviate too far from that you can be held accountable for destruction of evidence.
It isn't a ruling against google. It is a decision to let the case proceed. Google hasn't lost anything, other than their lawyers will have to do something to earn their keep.
This is a common problem where peoples apparent ignorance of the legal system gets in the way. Google argued there didn't need to be a trial because what they were being accused of (wiretap violations) were inapplicable under the circumstances. Essentially the judge said that isn't a given so the trial to determine (in part) whether or not google violated wiretap act will proceed.
This kind of pretrial activity makes a lot of sense. Why go through a long, drawn out murder trial when you can readily demonstrate that the person supposedly murdered is, in fact, alive?
The judges decision is not a ruling and does not mean scanning is necessarily under the wiretap. All it really means is that there's enough complexity to the situation to require a full hearing in court. That's it, nothing more.
Exploring this further, it appears that someone doing this casually may think they have a lock screen bypass because they go through the steps and get full access to any application. The key here is the behavior of locking the phone: is the passcode immediately required or not? If testing this you have to either set that to immediately or wait long enough to ensure it isn't still just "swipe to unlock".
On another note, some combination of factors resulted in no access to the quick swipe apps. Could still swipe to get the camera from its separate point