This story is it. This is the acid test. A young woman is selected for the scanner; she feels uncomfortable the naked pictures of her being taken, she further feels uncomfortable with being groped in a body search and also refuses that. For this simple transgression, she is arrested, refused her flight and escorted out of the airport. The ability to refuse to be subjected to such indignities is a basic freedom once enjoyed in every western society.
With the current state of TSA any business that requires an employee to travel by air should be sued for sexual harassment. Since they're ordering their employee to pick between naked pictures or being groped.
Actually, programming is one of the few disciplines where practice can be exactly the same as the theory - the bits and bytes are all the same, they don't break from material fatigue; and if you write software for which you have a proof of correctness, it will simply work correctly. Few other branches of human endeavor are free from the evils of the material world to such a degree.
I disagree. If you're programming the OS it might be true (with narrow hardware compatibilities). However as soon as you write an application for a user, theory is useless. Users do the strangest things to their OS. One user might throw away all RST packets at the firewall because they read about sandvine when comcast was throttling. Another user tried to fix his own windows box, deleting important windows registry keys, so explorer freezes randomly. Another user overmounted a directory over/etc, so now there are users logged in that don't exist in/etc/passwd. All of these will break even the most basic assumptions an application programmer would have.
If your theory is broad enough to cover real-life scenarios with real screwed up people then "In theory" is the same as "In practice". But if your theory is that good then there is no point in testing software.
In your analogy of Toyota distributing cars without following terms of the license, the dealer is NOT authorized to distribute under terms of the license. It becomes a copyright violation. The GPL is very clear about this.
The point is they don't need to agree to the license, the GPL never forces anyone into it (section 9). By not agreeing to the license, all normal copyright law restrictions apply to them. However in this case they aren't infringing copyright, they're merely abiding by first sale rule.
In fact a case can be made that apps that include a click-through EULA of the GPL violate the GPL. Since clicking I disagree will refuse to install the app which is an additional restriction (section 10). You can't force someone into the GPL, only pursue them for copyright infringement if they disagree.
Pursuing Telstra is stupid, they should be attacking the OEM manufacturers.
9. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
10.... You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
It's messed up that the EFF thinks that it's not okay to sue thousands of people at once.
How does one present their individual defense if they're lumped in with a 1000 other defendants. I think your point is it would be a whole lot more efficient to deal with people if they weren't allowed to defend themselves in court. I'm just flabbergasted at that notion. The idea that we should throw out constitutional protections to save corporations money is clearly fascism.
BTW these group trials are just to subpoena records. As soon as they get the records they'll drop the case and send infringement letters to the individuals. Even these large-scale subpoena trials can turn into a madhouse with the attempts to suppress.
What permissions do you need for this? Do you have to be the owner of the network in order to sniff things out in this manner? Or is it possible for me to steal accounts off a public network?
You need to be administrator to place your network card into promiscious mode or rfmon for wireless.
So in a public wifi network you're screwed. In a public ethernet network it depends if it's a switched or hubbed network. But even in a switched network you could be vulnerable to this via ARP poisoning.
The takeaway is what we've known for decades, if you want private communications use encryption.
This mouse is so configurable, yet can't be used naturally by left handers. This is fail for 10% of the population.
No most left handers still use right-handed mouses. There's a good reason: CTRL-C and CTRL-V are common operations when using a mouse to highlight. Using a mouse doesn't require a lot of coordination unless you need very fine control. I can't do the most basic life tasks with my offhand but I still can use a mouse in either hand.
Dvorak is also great on your own computer, but eventually you'll have to use someone else's, so you better be prepared to cope with the standard setup.
Actually, users who know what they are doing don't need NoScript, we just don't visit shitty sites in the first place
You're right here's a simple checklist: -no sites that present user content (webmail, social networking, wikipedia, blogs or forums) because someone might sneak XSS past filters -no sites without SSL, otherwise you're vulnerable to MITM injection of scripts -no sites that use third-party analytics or advertising that could inject scripts -no URL shortners or sites that redirect to third-party sites.
That narrows it down to sites you can trust without noscript. Unless they get hacked.
Exercise for the reader, tell me if they're safe or not: www.papajohnsonline.com www.toyotarecall.com www.lady-gaga.com www.metacritic.com
If you loaded them to check, it's too late to protect from a drive-by but they're all potentially risky. Papa johns redirects to third party advertiser after ordering (or at least they used to, either way you won't know until after it happens.) Next two aren't real pages. Metacritic loads scripts from at least 7 different domains (probably more once you start allowing those scripts)
I think the problem most people run into on first game (besides the delays on the stupid next turn button and other polish issues) is that it starts at way too low of difficulty for anyone but completely new Civ players. So we get a lot of complaints about the AI being too dumb. You could probably play with the same difficulty setting as Civ4 on your first game, which is a sign that it's a much easier game. Perhaps the AI slider should be separate from the difficulty slider.
It doesn't matter if the snorkel works or not. If you're prepared enough to have the device then you should be getting a gas mask instead.
If you have free range enough to improvise this device, you have enough leeway to escape. I don't keep hose near my bathroom and certainly not one that would provide enough airflow.
Plus if I survived with an improvised device, I'd probably get sued for patent infringement.
Most gun encounters occur within 15 feet, which is about a second away from physical contact with the bad guy. Even 0-5 feet, the gun is invaluable, and can stop an adversary or at least allow you to escape. And if your adversary has a gun, the only thing to give you a fighting chance is another gun.
No it's not. An untrained person with a melee weapon at 15 feet would win *every time* against a trained person with a holstered gun. Don't believe me, try a Tueller drill with your own weapon. For most people drawing a weapon takes active thought and is not reflex. Also for most people they won't have a round chambered which would mean 2-handed operation. Here is the steps to respond to threat with a gun:
1. Threat identified 2. Decide to draw gun 3. Draw gun (first removing any retention and assuming it's immediately accessible) 4. Chamber round 5. Hammer cocked (may not be necessary) 6. Remove safety 7. Raise and point
Police studies have been conducted for a prepared cop (remove steps 1, 2, 4, 5) and a standing assailant armed with a melee weapon. At a range of 21 feet, both sides have an even chance. This is a Tueller drill and it ignores the two longest steps, deciding to draw and chambering a round. I would question the ability of a moderately trained but *unprepared* person to confront a real threat at less then 150 foot range. If you're carrying a weapon all the time for self-defense I question that you'll leave a round chambered and the hammer cocked (but I know some people do).
The martial arts bit is a red herring, the real problem is guns aren't good close combat weapons when in holster. If most gun encounters really do occur within 15 feet then drawing the gun probably was not necessary for defense but merely as a threat. I would question that statement by asking how many resulted in the gun being fired. A spring-loaded expandable baton is a better weapon for self-defense (unless the aggressor has a gun, but you're not suggesting drawing a gun against someone who has a gun pointed at you, are you?). Now if you want to hurt someone running away then you need a gun.
This is not an anti-gun post. Part of knowing how to use a gun is knowing the limitations. It's the same for all weapons or unarmed training, and it's quite amusing to watch videos of overconfident people getting their ass-kicked. The best thing you can do for safety is be aware of your surroundings and leave dangerous situations before a threat emerges.
That's entirely correct. It proves there's a way for steam to decide when you can and can't run the game. Just the fact it's possible at all is so loathsome I will never pay a cent for such a thing.
The activation server wouldn't activate until 10AM EST (not local time) because that was the release time the publishers set. The real question is why are they setting the release time in the middle of the day, and why are they selling boxed copies beforehand. It's actually pretty common for games to be sold before their release date, and then not work because the infrastructure isn't up.
You don't take down a service days before the update is ready without even announcing the update. They must have legally lost the rights to distribute a lot of their games. My theory is they got bought out and that invalidated a lot of their contracts with publishers because of some clause.
I suspect they're just renegotiating and sorting through contracts to see what they can still distribute before they come back online.
You have a choice on whether you will put yourself in that situation. That makes it not inevitable by definition.
That is only true if the pilot is fully informed and knows the risks. I would argue the pilot is responsible to know the operating limits and maintenance of their equipment. But it's quite possible for the decision-makers know a risk the pilot doesn't.
Wouldn't more Ron Paul mean that the oligopolies are free to do just that, even when the user has nowhere else to go?
Freedom should be for individuals, not corporations.
I don't know Ron Paul's view but the libertarian idea is that oligopolies exist because of government regulation. If you reduce the right regulations you can encourage competition. Now the problem is any legislation to reduce regulation brings out the corporate lobbyists and the regulations become targeted even more to strengthen oligopolies. Some libertarians are very concerned with the power of corporations, because that power is often obtained through Government entitlements, which Libertarians label as theft from the people. Of course other libertarians want to auction off our national parks to the highest bidder.
Any set of laws that doesn't allow the OWNER of a plane to make an exception for certain types of materials when the contents are known is just stupid.
Great so Southwest should be able to exempt their passengers from the TSA liquid requirements? US Airways can allow knives with blades under 2 inches long. Ryanair can charge you a fee to skip security all together.
Every plane has an owner. I don't agree with most of the security theater but the idea of a secure zone only works if they don't grant exemptions. After an item is past the security gate there is no tracking of where it ends up.
Sounds like too many coincidences to convince a jury.
Too many coincidences? I don't see a single one. Someone wanted to impersonate company so they copied the details out of whois to next registrar. I don't get why there's a lot of posts saying this is complicated, seems pretty simple to me.
The real problem is the third party contractor passed off the whois info like it was definitive information so the legal department treated it like it was. They're not technical so they will treat it like expert testimony. Likely the contractor provided a report and has moved on, with no communication remaining. If it was an in-house investigation there could be an easy followup. You're screwed, you have to impeach that report, but you won't see it.
Did you place your information in the original domain registration or did the company? If the company did they'd be responsible for the leak of personal information that led to identity theft. The best I can see is trying to turn it into the company's fault. You could also try looking at historical data on the site, archive.org or historical whois data to see if it reveals more info.
Talk to a lawyer but I don't think legal action would help at all. If you're worth something the company they'll keep you, if you're easily replaceable you'll be replaced. The truth won't change that.
The problem is gathering the evidence to say they actually did download: To demonstrate uploading you request to download from people already in the swarm. To demonstrate downloading you have to first offer, wait for a request then upload. Can you help someone infringe your copyrights and then sue them for it.
The subpoena would be "These 100 John Does downloaded my art from me, causing me damages, I demand their ISP records" then the obvious response would be "Well stop giving it to them numbskull".
Which is a lot different then "These 100 John Does are offering my art online, I was able to download it from them and demand their ISP records". By purely leeching, they're not contributing to the infringement.
Incidentally, don't keep more than $100,000 in any one US bank. Banks go bust all the time. 10 more banks went bust last month.
FDIC insurance was raised to 250k:
"On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law, which, in part, permanently raises the current standard maximum deposit insurance amount (SMDIA) to $250,000. "
Agreed, I think it's a marketing ploy. The only people I can see raising a stink are family members on base. A wife taking her son to PX might make issue of it. Some spouses are crazy in that every time they see a military portrayal on TV they immediately assume it's their spouse. I knew one wife that couldn't watch more then five minutes of band of brothers without violently breaking down.
Personally I'd be more concerned that FPS in general might encourage reckless indiscriminate killing for soldiers (regardless of what team they play on). I don't believe violent games make people violent. But I wonder if indiscriminate killing in games makes people less discriminate in killing in real life. The enemies never surrender in games, usually there is no concept of capturing enemies and few games include innocent civilians. Even if that is a problem, it's not fixed by censoring, it's fixed by more training (after all military is a captive audience to training)
I have Fedora 12 on my desktop with SELinux enabled. I didn't have to do ANYTHING AT ALL. I haven't seen an un-intentional alert in months.
Fedora uses targeted policy by default, meaning there's confined and unconfined processes. Services/daemons are confined, User processes are unconfined (full permissions). Why? Because it's too freaking hard to set selinux contexts for user processes.
So your web browser, email, and bittorrent all are unaffected by selinux in most distros. I wouldn't recommend trying to setup contexts for them either, selinux is a nightmare. Apparmor at least you can get sane profiles for user applications.
You left out the tragic reason why he couldn't marry her. Before he wrote the books he did a lot of work investigating extremist groups, he made a lot of enemies. His marriage would have put details of him and his wife into public view and he was unwilling to take that risk. Sad story.
Slashdot Mirror
This story is it. This is the acid test. A young woman is selected for the scanner; she feels uncomfortable the naked pictures of her being taken, she further feels uncomfortable with being groped in a body search and also refuses that. For this simple transgression, she is arrested, refused her flight and escorted out of the airport. The ability to refuse to be subjected to such indignities is a basic freedom once enjoyed in every western society.
With the current state of TSA any business that requires an employee to travel by air should be sued for sexual harassment. Since they're ordering their employee to pick between naked pictures or being groped.
Actually, programming is one of the few disciplines where practice can be exactly the same as the theory - the bits and bytes are all the same, they don't break from material fatigue; and if you write software for which you have a proof of correctness, it will simply work correctly. Few other branches of human endeavor are free from the evils of the material world to such a degree.
I disagree. If you're programming the OS it might be true (with narrow hardware compatibilities). However as soon as you write an application for a user, theory is useless. Users do the strangest things to their OS. One user might throw away all RST packets at the firewall because they read about sandvine when comcast was throttling. Another user tried to fix his own windows box, deleting important windows registry keys, so explorer freezes randomly. Another user overmounted a directory over /etc, so now there are users logged in that don't exist in /etc/passwd. All of these will break even the most basic assumptions an application programmer would have.
If your theory is broad enough to cover real-life scenarios with real screwed up people then "In theory" is the same as "In practice". But if your theory is that good then there is no point in testing software.
In your analogy of Toyota distributing cars without following terms of the license, the dealer is NOT authorized to distribute under terms of the license. It becomes a copyright violation. The GPL is very clear about this.
The point is they don't need to agree to the license, the GPL never forces anyone into it (section 9). By not agreeing to the license, all normal copyright law restrictions apply to them. However in this case they aren't infringing copyright, they're merely abiding by first sale rule.
In fact a case can be made that apps that include a click-through EULA of the GPL violate the GPL. Since clicking I disagree will refuse to install the app which is an additional restriction (section 10). You can't force someone into the GPL, only pursue them for copyright infringement if they disagree.
Pursuing Telstra is stupid, they should be attacking the OEM manufacturers.
9. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
10. ...
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
It's messed up that the EFF thinks that it's not okay to sue thousands of people at once.
How does one present their individual defense if they're lumped in with a 1000 other defendants. I think your point is it would be a whole lot more efficient to deal with people if they weren't allowed to defend themselves in court. I'm just flabbergasted at that notion. The idea that we should throw out constitutional protections to save corporations money is clearly fascism.
BTW these group trials are just to subpoena records. As soon as they get the records they'll drop the case and send infringement letters to the individuals. Even these large-scale subpoena trials can turn into a madhouse with the attempts to suppress.
What permissions do you need for this? Do you have to be the owner of the network in order to sniff things out in this manner? Or is it possible for me to steal accounts off a public network?
You need to be administrator to place your network card into promiscious mode or rfmon for wireless.
So in a public wifi network you're screwed. In a public ethernet network it depends if it's a switched or hubbed network. But even in a switched network you could be vulnerable to this via ARP poisoning.
The takeaway is what we've known for decades, if you want private communications use encryption.
This mouse is so configurable, yet can't be used naturally by left handers. This is fail for 10% of the population.
No most left handers still use right-handed mouses. There's a good reason: CTRL-C and CTRL-V are common operations when using a mouse to highlight. Using a mouse doesn't require a lot of coordination unless you need very fine control. I can't do the most basic life tasks with my offhand but I still can use a mouse in either hand.
Dvorak is also great on your own computer, but eventually you'll have to use someone else's, so you better be prepared to cope with the standard setup.
Actually, users who know what they are doing don't need NoScript, we just don't visit shitty sites in the first place
You're right here's a simple checklist:
-no sites that present user content (webmail, social networking, wikipedia, blogs or forums) because someone might sneak XSS past filters
-no sites without SSL, otherwise you're vulnerable to MITM injection of scripts
-no sites that use third-party analytics or advertising that could inject scripts
-no URL shortners or sites that redirect to third-party sites.
That narrows it down to sites you can trust without noscript. Unless they get hacked.
Exercise for the reader, tell me if they're safe or not:
www.papajohnsonline.com
www.toyotarecall.com
www.lady-gaga.com
www.metacritic.com
If you loaded them to check, it's too late to protect from a drive-by but they're all potentially risky. Papa johns redirects to third party advertiser after ordering (or at least they used to, either way you won't know until after it happens.) Next two aren't real pages. Metacritic loads scripts from at least 7 different domains (probably more once you start allowing those scripts)
I think the problem most people run into on first game (besides the delays on the stupid next turn button and other polish issues) is that it starts at way too low of difficulty for anyone but completely new Civ players. So we get a lot of complaints about the AI being too dumb. You could probably play with the same difficulty setting as Civ4 on your first game, which is a sign that it's a much easier game. Perhaps the AI slider should be separate from the difficulty slider.
It doesn't matter if the snorkel works or not. If you're prepared enough to have the device then you should be getting a gas mask instead.
If you have free range enough to improvise this device, you have enough leeway to escape. I don't keep hose near my bathroom and certainly not one that would provide enough airflow.
Plus if I survived with an improvised device, I'd probably get sued for patent infringement.
Of course UFOs are real. Do you really think we are able to identify every flying object?
Guess what, unexplained phenomena exist too
Most gun encounters occur within 15 feet, which is about a second away from physical contact with the bad guy. Even 0-5 feet, the gun is invaluable, and can stop an adversary or at least allow you to escape. And if your adversary has a gun, the only thing to give you a fighting chance is another gun.
No it's not. An untrained person with a melee weapon at 15 feet would win *every time* against a trained person with a holstered gun. Don't believe me, try a Tueller drill with your own weapon. For most people drawing a weapon takes active thought and is not reflex. Also for most people they won't have a round chambered which would mean 2-handed operation. Here is the steps to respond to threat with a gun:
1. Threat identified
2. Decide to draw gun
3. Draw gun (first removing any retention and assuming it's immediately accessible)
4. Chamber round
5. Hammer cocked (may not be necessary)
6. Remove safety
7. Raise and point
Police studies have been conducted for a prepared cop (remove steps 1, 2, 4, 5) and a standing assailant armed with a melee weapon. At a range of 21 feet, both sides have an even chance. This is a Tueller drill and it ignores the two longest steps, deciding to draw and chambering a round. I would question the ability of a moderately trained but *unprepared* person to confront a real threat at less then 150 foot range. If you're carrying a weapon all the time for self-defense I question that you'll leave a round chambered and the hammer cocked (but I know some people do).
The martial arts bit is a red herring, the real problem is guns aren't good close combat weapons when in holster. If most gun encounters really do occur within 15 feet then drawing the gun probably was not necessary for defense but merely as a threat. I would question that statement by asking how many resulted in the gun being fired. A spring-loaded expandable baton is a better weapon for self-defense (unless the aggressor has a gun, but you're not suggesting drawing a gun against someone who has a gun pointed at you, are you?). Now if you want to hurt someone running away then you need a gun.
This is not an anti-gun post. Part of knowing how to use a gun is knowing the limitations. It's the same for all weapons or unarmed training, and it's quite amusing to watch videos of overconfident people getting their ass-kicked. The best thing you can do for safety is be aware of your surroundings and leave dangerous situations before a threat emerges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
That's entirely correct. It proves there's a way for steam to decide when you can and can't run the game. Just the fact it's possible at all is so loathsome I will never pay a cent for such a thing.
The activation server wouldn't activate until 10AM EST (not local time) because that was the release time the publishers set. The real question is why are they setting the release time in the middle of the day, and why are they selling boxed copies beforehand. It's actually pretty common for games to be sold before their release date, and then not work because the infrastructure isn't up.
You don't take down a service days before the update is ready without even announcing the update. They must have legally lost the rights to distribute a lot of their games. My theory is they got bought out and that invalidated a lot of their contracts with publishers because of some clause.
I suspect they're just renegotiating and sorting through contracts to see what they can still distribute before they come back online.
You have a choice on whether you will put yourself in that situation. That makes it not inevitable by definition.
That is only true if the pilot is fully informed and knows the risks. I would argue the pilot is responsible to know the operating limits and maintenance of their equipment. But it's quite possible for the decision-makers know a risk the pilot doesn't.
Wouldn't more Ron Paul mean that the oligopolies are free to do just that, even when the user has nowhere else to go?
Freedom should be for individuals, not corporations.
I don't know Ron Paul's view but the libertarian idea is that oligopolies exist because of government regulation. If you reduce the right regulations you can encourage competition. Now the problem is any legislation to reduce regulation brings out the corporate lobbyists and the regulations become targeted even more to strengthen oligopolies. Some libertarians are very concerned with the power of corporations, because that power is often obtained through Government entitlements, which Libertarians label as theft from the people. Of course other libertarians want to auction off our national parks to the highest bidder.
Any set of laws that doesn't allow the OWNER of a plane to make an exception for certain types of materials when the contents are known is just stupid.
Great so Southwest should be able to exempt their passengers from the TSA liquid requirements? US Airways can allow knives with blades under 2 inches long. Ryanair can charge you a fee to skip security all together.
Every plane has an owner. I don't agree with most of the security theater but the idea of a secure zone only works if they don't grant exemptions. After an item is past the security gate there is no tracking of where it ends up.
De Beers will be funding NASA from now on!
Why? Diamonds are relatively cheap. If we wanted more diamonds we'd just produce more.
Diamonds are only valuable when they're obtained through human suffering. You wouldn't want to wear a diamond a machine suffered to make.
Maybe if DeBeers could crash this star into China then it would be worth something.
Which media can't my HTPC linux system play again? Oh yeah wait there isn't any.
Netflix
Sounds like too many coincidences to convince a jury.
Too many coincidences? I don't see a single one. Someone wanted to impersonate company so they copied the details out of whois to next registrar. I don't get why there's a lot of posts saying this is complicated, seems pretty simple to me.
The real problem is the third party contractor passed off the whois info like it was definitive information so the legal department treated it like it was. They're not technical so they will treat it like expert testimony. Likely the contractor provided a report and has moved on, with no communication remaining. If it was an in-house investigation there could be an easy followup. You're screwed, you have to impeach that report, but you won't see it.
Did you place your information in the original domain registration or did the company? If the company did they'd be responsible for the leak of personal information that led to identity theft. The best I can see is trying to turn it into the company's fault. You could also try looking at historical data on the site, archive.org or historical whois data to see if it reveals more info.
Talk to a lawyer but I don't think legal action would help at all. If you're worth something the company they'll keep you, if you're easily replaceable you'll be replaced. The truth won't change that.
The problem is gathering the evidence to say they actually did download:
To demonstrate uploading you request to download from people already in the swarm.
To demonstrate downloading you have to first offer, wait for a request then upload. Can you help someone infringe your copyrights and then sue them for it.
The subpoena would be "These 100 John Does downloaded my art from me, causing me damages, I demand their ISP records" then the obvious response would be "Well stop giving it to them numbskull".
Which is a lot different then "These 100 John Does are offering my art online, I was able to download it from them and demand their ISP records". By purely leeching, they're not contributing to the infringement.
Incidentally, don't keep more than $100,000 in any one US bank. Banks go bust all the time. 10 more banks went bust last month.
FDIC insurance was raised to 250k:
"On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law, which, in part, permanently raises the current standard maximum deposit insurance amount (SMDIA) to $250,000. "
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/changes.html
Agreed, I think it's a marketing ploy. The only people I can see raising a stink are family members on base. A wife taking her son to PX might make issue of it. Some spouses are crazy in that every time they see a military portrayal on TV they immediately assume it's their spouse. I knew one wife that couldn't watch more then five minutes of band of brothers without violently breaking down.
Personally I'd be more concerned that FPS in general might encourage reckless indiscriminate killing for soldiers (regardless of what team they play on). I don't believe violent games make people violent. But I wonder if indiscriminate killing in games makes people less discriminate in killing in real life. The enemies never surrender in games, usually there is no concept of capturing enemies and few games include innocent civilians. Even if that is a problem, it's not fixed by censoring, it's fixed by more training (after all military is a captive audience to training)
I have Fedora 12 on my desktop with SELinux enabled. I didn't have to do ANYTHING AT ALL. I haven't seen an un-intentional alert in months.
Fedora uses targeted policy by default, meaning there's confined and unconfined processes. Services/daemons are confined, User processes are unconfined (full permissions). Why? Because it's too freaking hard to set selinux contexts for user processes.
So your web browser, email, and bittorrent all are unaffected by selinux in most distros. I wouldn't recommend trying to setup contexts for them either, selinux is a nightmare. Apparmor at least you can get sane profiles for user applications.
As noted if you can do this on a laptop and then voip a call, couldn't people do this at home as a pseudo-femtocell?
Yes and there's already software to do it:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openbootts/
You left out the tragic reason why he couldn't marry her. Before he wrote the books he did a lot of work investigating extremist groups, he made a lot of enemies. His marriage would have put details of him and his wife into public view and he was unwilling to take that risk. Sad story.