Aren't NDAs limited in scope? Even in the private sector, an NDA can not be used as a deterrent in whistle blowing, especially when you know the law has been willfully violated and done in bad faith.
You'd be an idiot if you just sacked them instead of finding other ways to utilize their skills and experience. These are not jobs at the same level of a burger flipper, they are highly trained people who hopefully have a diverse set of skills and talents. Technology is not meant to make people redundant, it is to free them up to be even more productive.
Wrong again. I have an *autographed get-out-of-jail-free card*! "The President of the United States authorizes Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Ritter to conduct 'Operation Reciprocity' including all necessary funding and support. This action is deemed important to the national security of the United States etcetera, etcetera, etcetera." You don't *have* one of these, do you Jack?
The get-out-of-jail-free card is, in this case, a court order. You don't have one of these?
Gotta be careful there. Microsoft makes a price distinction between their offerings for deskless or office worker licenses - one of the differences being the ability to connect your outlook.
Rendition cannot be performed from the UK? This is news to me. The fact is that the only thing that protects Assange is not the due process of law, the Swedish or English governments. It is his little bag of dirty secrets, and everyone knows it.
I'm pretty sure that insurance file was to prevent the man from being assassinated or disappeared. As it is, Assange stands a good chance of winning the case, or of showing everyone what a kangaroo court looks like outside of Australia. It's way too early to release the goods.
If they aren't decentralized, then all that bunker represents is a metaphor. That data center is no proof against cutting the lines, rerouting the network, or seizing of the domain name.
Prior to the latest leaks I would have said that the order of magnitude was disproportionate - what we saw was clearly unethical behavior by elected representatives, broken promises and actions that were contrary to the welfare of the people they represent. That was before. The latest round of leaks were actions that are actually covered under matters of operational security - It is expected that people back-talk each other, spy on each other, and do all kinds of crap behind the scenes - I'd expect nothing less. So what if people personally hate each other? What matters is the official position, not their personal feelings, and if they are unable to express their personal positions among themselves in private, it is hurtful to everyone involved. Personally I want to see some stuff on ACTA though. That stuff needs to be busted wide open.
Although I would agree that Microsoft has acted in a dishonest and unethical fashion, I'm not sure that redress should be found in the patent court. Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Certificates expire. They do that because they can be brute-forced, given enough time and a big enough bot net. A cert that has not changed since the last time you connected may not be as secure as you think. And a cert that has changed due to expiry, change of provider, or any other reason is no indication that there is anything wrong either. I do agree that the authentication part is edgy though, seems that you have inadvertently farmed out the implicit trust - but not to the issuing authorities. You handed authority to Microsoft, the Mozilla foundation and Apple, because of whatever choices they decided to make as default in your browser. (You can be assured that a lot of money changes hands there)
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't NDAs limited in scope? Even in the private sector, an NDA can not be used as a deterrent in whistle blowing, especially when you know the law has been willfully violated and done in bad faith.
it would be interesting if someone got control of loic and did this...
2. Pigs. Even better than dogs.
Your solution is hiring more police?
They can't sue one another, yet they are suing one another. That's in the headline, not even the summary.
You'd be an idiot if you just sacked them instead of finding other ways to utilize their skills and experience. These are not jobs at the same level of a burger flipper, they are highly trained people who hopefully have a diverse set of skills and talents. Technology is not meant to make people redundant, it is to free them up to be even more productive.
They replaced the "Y" with Hard Gay Razor Ramon a while ago, but I guess he got tired of the job.
Time Magazine - not as important or influential as we all thought it was. I mean, they didn't even win their own award once!
Barenaked Ladies people.
It is still vulnerable to the whims of the US government, and they have shown that they are no longer taking a hands-off approach.
It's a good thing. Now you get to choose whose policy you agree with before spilling the beans.
Wrong again. I have an *autographed get-out-of-jail-free card*! "The President of the United States authorizes Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Ritter to conduct 'Operation Reciprocity' including all necessary funding and support. This action is deemed important to the national security of the United States etcetera, etcetera, etcetera." You don't *have* one of these, do you Jack?
The get-out-of-jail-free card is, in this case, a court order. You don't have one of these?
If you're using 1 finger to type, it's handy to use caps for capital letters.
She can go through the porn scanner any time. Then we can bust the myth about x-rays causing birth defects.
Gotta be careful there. Microsoft makes a price distinction between their offerings for deskless or office worker licenses - one of the differences being the ability to connect your outlook.
I recall the article said that her complaints were originally ignored by the police. It takes the NYT to shame your authorities into action?
Rendition cannot be performed from the UK? This is news to me. The fact is that the only thing that protects Assange is not the due process of law, the Swedish or English governments. It is his little bag of dirty secrets, and everyone knows it.
Definitions change. Used to be a computer was a guy who did math. And a nurse was a woman who offered breast milk for sale.
I'm pretty sure that insurance file was to prevent the man from being assassinated or disappeared. As it is, Assange stands a good chance of winning the case, or of showing everyone what a kangaroo court looks like outside of Australia. It's way too early to release the goods.
No, obviously I do want to know what they sell. Especially when they try to sell it under a different name. All the better to not buy it with.
If they aren't decentralized, then all that bunker represents is a metaphor. That data center is no proof against cutting the lines, rerouting the network, or seizing of the domain name.
Duncan Idaho...
All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead.
Prior to the latest leaks I would have said that the order of magnitude was disproportionate - what we saw was clearly unethical behavior by elected representatives, broken promises and actions that were contrary to the welfare of the people they represent.
That was before. The latest round of leaks were actions that are actually covered under matters of operational security - It is expected that people back-talk each other, spy on each other, and do all kinds of crap behind the scenes - I'd expect nothing less. So what if people personally hate each other? What matters is the official position, not their personal feelings, and if they are unable to express their personal positions among themselves in private, it is hurtful to everyone involved.
Personally I want to see some stuff on ACTA though. That stuff needs to be busted wide open.
Although I would agree that Microsoft has acted in a dishonest and unethical fashion, I'm not sure that redress should be found in the patent court. Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Certificates expire. They do that because they can be brute-forced, given enough time and a big enough bot net. A cert that has not changed since the last time you connected may not be as secure as you think. And a cert that has changed due to expiry, change of provider, or any other reason is no indication that there is anything wrong either. I do agree that the authentication part is edgy though, seems that you have inadvertently farmed out the implicit trust - but not to the issuing authorities. You handed authority to Microsoft, the Mozilla foundation and Apple, because of whatever choices they decided to make as default in your browser. (You can be assured that a lot of money changes hands there)