Phone records. I don't think Yahoo or Google is a phone company in the sense AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile are. As others have pointed out, there is no reason for them to challenge these orders, as they a) get paid for the costs of complying (from what I understand), b) the orders themselves are classified, so no real risk (until now) of people knowing what is going on and c) it would cost them money to challenge. The entire system is stacked against privacy.
There are two times that I *feel* like multi-vitamins help me (yay for the Placebo effect if that is what it is):
1. When I drink too much, if I take a vitamin before going to bed, it really helps stem the hangover the next morning; 2. I have a tendency to have restless leg syndrome. Taking a vitamin a bit before bed seems to help, and the medical literature seems to support this.
The article in question attacks very particular statements about Vitamins to cure disease, then uses this to state that they are rarely useful to take. The reality is much more murky, and for many people, general multivitamins may help.
I just tried, and I was able to "play" the demo, walking around the environment, etc. I ran the benchmark, and got 57fps, and although I have 120hz monitors, I suspect something is limiting most of the rendering to 60hz. TBH, this is amazing to me. I tested under windows 7 with firefox 20.0.1 however, so I'll have to try booted into Ubuntu and see how it works there.
then disable sending your queries to remote sources. Yes, it is enabled by default, but no, you don't have to use it. I disabled it as soon as I typed in "jockey" to find the additional drivers tool in 12.10, and got ads for underware. Yea. No.
True that on the acronym. What else did I saw was wrong? Release of information is a violation. If someone knows attempts at a violation occur are being attempted by someone not authorized (this is an assumption) is this not knowledge of an attempted crime? I know this is a response to an AC, but the reality is that if you don't CYA, and shit goes south, it will be your ass that gets nailed.
Is the hospital allowed to access records without a release based on HIPPA regulations since it is an independent practice? If not, then report them to the police. Apologize to the hospital, but explain, you have NO CHOICE. HIPPA is not something to mess with, and it doesn't matter who is trying to access the records, it IS a crime if accessing this data is not permitted. Remember the guys that got sent away for accessing the public data for AT&T? Yea... That but worse. Based on the fact that they were sentenced, even if they gained no data, the attempt itself was the crime. Failure to report a crime is a crime itself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=misprision&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html. Report it. If they gain access to records, and then data from it leaks out, say because someone notable was a patient, then it will be on YOU. If the local police decide not to follow up, it is NOT on you.
if you have a laptop and another computer, then use rdp to use the monitor for both. if just the laptop, ignore the fact the laptop has a monitor, and use the large monitor alone.
If a company did that, I think there would be a nice market for people that want to try both. You would have to choose which you want loaded at any given time, but it will insure that if windows 8 phones do start to look really nice, you won't be stuck with cellphone envy.
This is all easily explained by user experience testing. Take a bunch of people who don't know how to use a computer, put various interfaces in front of them, and see which is easier for them to learn how to use. The net result? The Ribbon, and Windows 8. The reality though is that all the people that were used to the old way now have to relearn how to use the tools, and often, the "easiest" to learn is also the less powerful in getting real work done day in and day out. This what I believe MS has been doing for years now--focusing on "how easy is it to learn" vs. "how useful is it to people that use it every day".
Consider Iceland, which has a great source of cheap renewable electricity with Geothermal power. The issue is them finding good uses for it--you can only smelt so much aluminum before the price goes down. This process would be ideal, as this process would let them create carbon neutral fuel. Other areas have good sources of Geothermal power as well, but often, they are too far from where the power is needed to make them useful in exploiting.
let me summarize the problem that is being observed: On a given interface, if you have more buffer memory than is needed as packet buffer on the transmit side, it can induce latency. As an example, consider a 1Mb/s link. If you want to have a peak of.1s latency added by buffering at high load, then you want 1Mb*.1=12,500 bytes of buffer. If you have 1MB of buffer, then you have 8 seconds of buffer, therefore triggering the "buffer bloat" issue. Part of the problem is that buffer size would be set based on the top speed a piece of hardware could drive, i.e. if you want a 1Gb/s interface to be able to buffer.1s, then you use it at 100Mb/s, then it has 1s worth of buffer. In most home deployments where you have a router that may have a 1Gbps upstream, maybe 4 100Mb/s physical connections, and a 54Mbps wireless router, you probably have a shared buffer for all the interfaces. The result of this is that when using the 54Mb/s wireless, you can easily have the buffer over saturated, while the buffer size may be just right for the 100Mb/s interfaces.
What is the solution to this? Realistically, the alternative is to drop packets that have resided in the buffer longer than a configured amount of time, which causes it's own performance issues. Net result: TCP would slowdown for a period of time, but would speed up again resulting in a sawtooth behavior. This would result in periodic issues with other protocols as well, i.e. VOIP would have dropped packets every time TCP ramps up again, etc.
Solution: Don't download porn when you are trying to do VOIP calls.
I'm not seeing your point. The wife could have legally changed her name, and otherwise insured that she can't be found through normal methods. The only linkage would be the dog, and where the husband made the mistake, the law is the only thing preventing the information from leaking. Security through obscurity often relies on people not looking behind the scenes to see what is going on, and taking the time to piece things together. That isn't what is presented in the scenario.
Abusive husband and his wife split up, and she goes into hiding fearing retaliation against he and their kids. She goes into hiding for fear of her life, but she left the dog because she didn't have much time. Later she goes back and gets the dog when he wasn't home, since he was in the habit of kicking the dog too, and the kids missed him. Fast forward three years. Her new husband is at the vet with the dog, who scans it, and finds it was chipped. The husband, not thinking about what had happened in the past asks for the address to be updated. Old husband is still furious at his old wife, and wants to extract revenge, so he requests the information so he can find out where she lives. He knows he can't go through the normal process, as the dog was equally the wife's dog, so he tries to bully the chip company.
Now, put in this context, if the chip company had released the information, and the guy kills his ex-wife, her new husband, the two kids, AND the dog, everybody would be on the chip companies ass for releasing private information.
The law IS correct here--he needs to go through the legal process to have information released to him.
While this looks interesting, there isn't enough information to determine the cause. What were the packets?
It could be DNS requests based on the expiration of a domain on the stripes. The content on the website may be expiring at particular times. Someone may be posting on blogs, or tweeting with a link to the page.
Simply put, without knowing what the content is, and filtering out "explainable" traffic, then looking at the result, any pattern is just an interesting curiosity, nothing more.
After the Gilmore court ruling, I **DID** try flying by saying that I prefer not to show my ID. In JFK I was refused entry on that basis (despite the TSA saying that they are changing the policy now). In SJC though, I was able to declare that I wished to be a selectee for secondary search instead of presenting ID. The front-line contractor though wrote "lost ID" on my boarding pass, and let me through. They did a search, and funny enough, the first time they wiped my bags, it tested positive for explosives. They laughed at that, and wiped it again (tested negative that time). Anybody making that much of a fuss over showing ID isn't going to be trying to get away with anything. Anyway, when I reported this to the guys at papersplease.org, it was the first time they heard of anybody actually making it through TSA security without presenting an ID under these conditions, although they did use the "lost ID" procedures instead of "I refuse to present an ID".
1. The TSA stated on Mar 21 2008 that there is no such requirement: http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tsa-080226-070-mocek.pdf
2. The requirement to present an ID was also found to not be required by federal court in the so-called "Gilmore" decision, in that someone could choose to subject themselves to additional screening. http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecision.pdf
3. If the TSA insists that "cooperative" fliers will be allowed through but fliers that simply do not provide ID won't be, this will be brought back to court, and the TSA will loose. They can't play with the rules like this, and if you read the TSA statement, they are basically saying FU to your rights that have already been upheld in court.
Sounds reasonable to me. Include a printed invoice (bill at say $.20 for the paper) that details this, and you are covered. If you get too many, state it will be 2-4 weeks for deliver, and make a bunch at once, saving costs, and pass it on. Reasonable means just that--is it reasonable for someone maintaining a baby distro to charge more for the labor of a physical copy? Yes. Is it reasonable for Redhat to charge the same amount? No, simply due to volume.
I'm guessing that the process you just described is what will land Iceland on the map as an energy producer. They have tons of geothermal power that could be used to power the cracking needed, and they will get oil and/or hydrogen out of it. The benefit is that if we can do this, than the resulting oil would be carbon neutral--if you burn it you are just putting it back where it started from. Most of the "energy" issues isn't that the world doesn't have the energy, it is in the wrong places.
1. ALL phone companies will sell your new phone number. It is a given. That Vonage made more on your number than others is simply how they are TRYING to make money. You have to request when you sign up not to have your phone number sold--it is called an "unlisted" and "private" number, and you usually have to pay for that, to offset the profit they make from the number. 2. You need to ask what the rounding factor is for all companies--some bill by the 10 second, some by the minute. Most charge by the minute.
The rest of the issues, wow, using your own included talk time to sell you stuff? Never used Vonage, and probably wouldn't now.
You do realize that the world doesn't live in one timezone right...? And as I write this I'm in the same timezone, yet helping someone 7 hours ahead via IM on a tech issue. Sigh.
Ironically enough, it is a statistical fact that a child is more likely to drown in a pool than to be killed by a gun, even accounting for the number of each. I.e. you can have X drownings per 1000 pools, but it is a lower number of deaths per 1000 guns in the US. Funny, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Phone records. I don't think Yahoo or Google is a phone company in the sense AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile are. As others have pointed out, there is no reason for them to challenge these orders, as they a) get paid for the costs of complying (from what I understand), b) the orders themselves are classified, so no real risk (until now) of people knowing what is going on and c) it would cost them money to challenge. The entire system is stacked against privacy.
There are two times that I *feel* like multi-vitamins help me (yay for the Placebo effect if that is what it is):
1. When I drink too much, if I take a vitamin before going to bed, it really helps stem the hangover the next morning;
2. I have a tendency to have restless leg syndrome. Taking a vitamin a bit before bed seems to help, and the medical literature seems to support this.
The article in question attacks very particular statements about Vitamins to cure disease, then uses this to state that they are rarely useful to take. The reality is much more murky, and for many people, general multivitamins may help.
I just tried, and I was able to "play" the demo, walking around the environment, etc. I ran the benchmark, and got 57fps, and although I have 120hz monitors, I suspect something is limiting most of the rendering to 60hz. TBH, this is amazing to me. I tested under windows 7 with firefox 20.0.1 however, so I'll have to try booted into Ubuntu and see how it works there.
then disable sending your queries to remote sources. Yes, it is enabled by default, but no, you don't have to use it. I disabled it as soon as I typed in "jockey" to find the additional drivers tool in 12.10, and got ads for underware. Yea. No.
True that on the acronym. What else did I saw was wrong? Release of information is a violation. If someone knows attempts at a violation occur are being attempted by someone not authorized (this is an assumption) is this not knowledge of an attempted crime? I know this is a response to an AC, but the reality is that if you don't CYA, and shit goes south, it will be your ass that gets nailed.
Is the hospital allowed to access records without a release based on HIPPA regulations since it is an independent practice? If not, then report them to the police. Apologize to the hospital, but explain, you have NO CHOICE. HIPPA is not something to mess with, and it doesn't matter who is trying to access the records, it IS a crime if accessing this data is not permitted. Remember the guys that got sent away for accessing the public data for AT&T? Yea... That but worse. Based on the fact that they were sentenced, even if they gained no data, the attempt itself was the crime. Failure to report a crime is a crime itself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=misprision&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html. Report it. If they gain access to records, and then data from it leaks out, say because someone notable was a patient, then it will be on YOU. If the local police decide not to follow up, it is NOT on you.
if you have a laptop and another computer, then use rdp to use the monitor for both. if just the laptop, ignore the fact the laptop has a monitor, and use the large monitor alone.
If a company did that, I think there would be a nice market for people that want to try both. You would have to choose which you want loaded at any given time, but it will insure that if windows 8 phones do start to look really nice, you won't be stuck with cellphone envy.
This is all easily explained by user experience testing. Take a bunch of people who don't know how to use a computer, put various interfaces in front of them, and see which is easier for them to learn how to use. The net result? The Ribbon, and Windows 8. The reality though is that all the people that were used to the old way now have to relearn how to use the tools, and often, the "easiest" to learn is also the less powerful in getting real work done day in and day out. This what I believe MS has been doing for years now--focusing on "how easy is it to learn" vs. "how useful is it to people that use it every day".
Consider Iceland, which has a great source of cheap renewable electricity with Geothermal power. The issue is them finding good uses for it--you can only smelt so much aluminum before the price goes down. This process would be ideal, as this process would let them create carbon neutral fuel. Other areas have good sources of Geothermal power as well, but often, they are too far from where the power is needed to make them useful in exploiting.
let me summarize the problem that is being observed: On a given interface, if you have more buffer memory than is needed as packet buffer on the transmit side, it can induce latency. As an example, consider a 1Mb/s link. If you want to have a peak of .1s latency added by buffering at high load, then you want 1Mb*.1=12,500 bytes of buffer. If you have 1MB of buffer, then you have 8 seconds of buffer, therefore triggering the "buffer bloat" issue. Part of the problem is that buffer size would be set based on the top speed a piece of hardware could drive, i.e. if you want a 1Gb/s interface to be able to buffer .1s, then you use it at 100Mb/s, then it has 1s worth of buffer. In most home deployments where you have a router that may have a 1Gbps upstream, maybe 4 100Mb/s physical connections, and a 54Mbps wireless router, you probably have a shared buffer for all the interfaces. The result of this is that when using the 54Mb/s wireless, you can easily have the buffer over saturated, while the buffer size may be just right for the 100Mb/s interfaces.
What is the solution to this? Realistically, the alternative is to drop packets that have resided in the buffer longer than a configured amount of time, which causes it's own performance issues. Net result: TCP would slowdown for a period of time, but would speed up again resulting in a sawtooth behavior. This would result in periodic issues with other protocols as well, i.e. VOIP would have dropped packets every time TCP ramps up again, etc.
Solution: Don't download porn when you are trying to do VOIP calls.
I'm not seeing your point. The wife could have legally changed her name, and otherwise insured that she can't be found through normal methods. The only linkage would be the dog, and where the husband made the mistake, the law is the only thing preventing the information from leaking. Security through obscurity often relies on people not looking behind the scenes to see what is going on, and taking the time to piece things together. That isn't what is presented in the scenario.
I posted a scenario that should make you understand why the law is as it is. Think abusive husbands.
Scenario:
Abusive husband and his wife split up, and she goes into hiding fearing retaliation against he and their kids. She goes into hiding for fear of her life, but she left the dog because she didn't have much time. Later she goes back and gets the dog when he wasn't home, since he was in the habit of kicking the dog too, and the kids missed him. Fast forward three years. Her new husband is at the vet with the dog, who scans it, and finds it was chipped. The husband, not thinking about what had happened in the past asks for the address to be updated. Old husband is still furious at his old wife, and wants to extract revenge, so he requests the information so he can find out where she lives. He knows he can't go through the normal process, as the dog was equally the wife's dog, so he tries to bully the chip company.
Now, put in this context, if the chip company had released the information, and the guy kills his ex-wife, her new husband, the two kids, AND the dog, everybody would be on the chip companies ass for releasing private information.
The law IS correct here--he needs to go through the legal process to have information released to him.
While this looks interesting, there isn't enough information to determine the cause. What were the packets?
It could be DNS requests based on the expiration of a domain on the stripes. The content on the website may be expiring at particular times. Someone may be posting on blogs, or tweeting with a link to the page.
Simply put, without knowing what the content is, and filtering out "explainable" traffic, then looking at the result, any pattern is just an interesting curiosity, nothing more.
a map of the internet may be good:
http://store.xkcd.com/ (scroll down)
http://www.bitwisegifts.com/page/bg/CTGY/14000
http://www.telegeography.com/products/map_cable/index.php
After the Gilmore court ruling, I **DID** try flying by saying that I prefer not to show my ID. In JFK I was refused entry on that basis (despite the TSA saying that they are changing the policy now). In SJC though, I was able to declare that I wished to be a selectee for secondary search instead of presenting ID. The front-line contractor though wrote "lost ID" on my boarding pass, and let me through. They did a search, and funny enough, the first time they wiped my bags, it tested positive for explosives. They laughed at that, and wiped it again (tested negative that time). Anybody making that much of a fuss over showing ID isn't going to be trying to get away with anything. Anyway, when I reported this to the guys at papersplease.org, it was the first time they heard of anybody actually making it through TSA security without presenting an ID under these conditions, although they did use the "lost ID" procedures instead of "I refuse to present an ID".
1. The TSA stated on Mar 21 2008 that there is no such requirement: http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tsa-080226-070-mocek.pdf
2. The requirement to present an ID was also found to not be required by federal court in the so-called "Gilmore" decision, in that someone could choose to subject themselves to additional screening. http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecision.pdf
3. If the TSA insists that "cooperative" fliers will be allowed through but fliers that simply do not provide ID won't be, this will be brought back to court, and the TSA will loose. They can't play with the rules like this, and if you read the TSA statement, they are basically saying FU to your rights that have already been upheld in court.
Sounds reasonable to me. Include a printed invoice (bill at say $.20 for the paper) that details this, and you are covered. If you get too many, state it will be 2-4 weeks for deliver, and make a bunch at once, saving costs, and pass it on. Reasonable means just that--is it reasonable for someone maintaining a baby distro to charge more for the labor of a physical copy? Yes. Is it reasonable for Redhat to charge the same amount? No, simply due to volume.
This has to be a joke. Pretty funny too though.
I'm guessing that the process you just described is what will land Iceland on the map as an energy producer. They have tons of geothermal power that could be used to power the cracking needed, and they will get oil and/or hydrogen out of it. The benefit is that if we can do this, than the resulting oil would be carbon neutral--if you burn it you are just putting it back where it started from. Most of the "energy" issues isn't that the world doesn't have the energy, it is in the wrong places.
1. ALL phone companies will sell your new phone number. It is a given. That Vonage made more on your number than others is simply how they are TRYING to make money. You have to request when you sign up not to have your phone number sold--it is called an "unlisted" and "private" number, and you usually have to pay for that, to offset the profit they make from the number.
2. You need to ask what the rounding factor is for all companies--some bill by the 10 second, some by the minute. Most charge by the minute.
The rest of the issues, wow, using your own included talk time to sell you stuff? Never used Vonage, and probably wouldn't now.
Women are able to judge someone with aggressive genes that can father a strong child, then pick a sucker to stand with her to raise them.
You do realize that the world doesn't live in one timezone right...? And as I write this I'm in the same timezone, yet helping someone 7 hours ahead via IM on a tech issue. Sigh.
Ironically enough, it is a statistical fact that a child is more likely to drown in a pool than to be killed by a gun, even accounting for the number of each. I.e. you can have X drownings per 1000 pools, but it is a lower number of deaths per 1000 guns in the US. Funny, huh?