you're incorrect, because that's not the point I was making - [b]every[/b] state allows recording with the consent of all parties. It has nothing to do with one party consent in those scenarios.
The issue is that the judge indicated that cali's consent law was not followed which tells you that whether it's one party or all party is irrelevant at that point.
I'm pretty sure if a judge has lost his cool, there's a damn good reason. In this case, all of the above anomaly stated - literally the government has broken the law on this.
You think a judge is going to be happy/calm about that?
that's like me saying hey, I broke into your house and raped your wife, and someone else saying it's wrong for *you* to be angry over that.
my fiancee will not give me those questions. I was explicit in telling her that I am not going to answer the "does this make me look fat" and other "there is no safe answer" questions unless she feels like getting blunt honesty.
with the lack of honesty even within our country, people are understandably pissed about the lack of honesty outside of our country too. The issue here is: if people were honest, we wouldn't have this kind of shit to deal with.
If Mugabe's government policy is a fucking joke, say it. Get it out there. Negotiations fall from it? Well, the problem isn't our diplomatics then, the problem is his country by and large. Think other countries wouldn't support us for bold-faced honesty? Think again.
It's a lot harder to spin things against someone when they're being brutally honest.
after all, we're building up Dubai as the next superpower. It's not like they're going to kiss our asses once they get there. Whose fault is it for the shit we've already stepped in? Twofacing isn't going to fix that. When people talk about the world as sunshine and rainbows while it's fire and brimstone, there is a bit of an issue with two facing.
the damage doesn't exist. that's just the alarmist nature of things.
they said the last wikileaks release was embarrassing and damaging, damned the whole thing, and looked what happened?
no damage.
The reality is, the only damage is going to be to the US, for having done fraudulent things and/or basically violated and ignored massive amounts of laws that we legislated to get approved in the first place.
last time I checked you don't waive your 4th and 5th amendment rights by choosing to fly.
Radiation concerns may or may not be legitimate, that's to be proven.
pornographic? well, yeah, it's people's naked bodies and the images are being stored without their consent, so yes that's a concern.
Is someone profiting off of it? Yes, Chertoff, who also happens to be defending the scanners.
Do you have enough foresight to realize what it means if enough people refuse to fly? I'll give you a hint: you won't be having a trans-atlantic flight, because flights are cancelled if enough people don't sign up, as that is the basis for flying in the first place. Unless you can afford roughly 40-50 grand per flight.
Slashdot Mirror
overruled: irrelevant.
you're incorrect, because that's not the point I was making - [b]every[/b] state allows recording with the consent of all parties. It has nothing to do with one party consent in those scenarios.
The issue is that the judge indicated that cali's consent law was not followed which tells you that whether it's one party or all party is irrelevant at that point.
I think it's funny that people talk about information leaks as competition.
wikileaks said themselves they welcome anyone else who can do it right and that there's a lot to getting it right.
I guess next off is a competition for honesty. At least we know where the US sits with that : dead last.
I'm pretty sure if a judge has lost his cool, there's a damn good reason. In this case, all of the above anomaly stated - literally the government has broken the law on this.
You think a judge is going to be happy/calm about that?
that's like me saying hey, I broke into your house and raped your wife, and someone else saying it's wrong for *you* to be angry over that.
it's not exactly reasonable.
that's pretty much every state, except that it was an undercover agent - it was not a support call.
the Judge stating it was a violation of cali law tells you that this consent was not obtained.
really? might want to oh, I don't know, google that. you'd be surprised that yes, there was a probe.
has nobody heard of a peering agreement before?
sheesh, this is not a fucking mystery or a shakedown or a violation of net neutrality.
it's a bit different when everyone's hand is up on the table.
that's the whole misnomer right there - it's not about my hand, it's about everyone's.
not all women are that bad :)
my fiancee will not give me those questions. I was explicit in telling her that I am not going to answer the "does this make me look fat" and other "there is no safe answer" questions unless she feels like getting blunt honesty.
oh, you mean the SEO/google competition guy who said he found a bias in google's results?
why is this even worth reposting (by slashdot and pcpro)?
with the lack of honesty even within our country, people are understandably pissed about the lack of honesty outside of our country too.
The issue here is: if people were honest, we wouldn't have this kind of shit to deal with.
If Mugabe's government policy is a fucking joke, say it. Get it out there. Negotiations fall from it? Well, the problem isn't our diplomatics then, the problem is his country by and large. Think other countries wouldn't support us for bold-faced honesty? Think again.
It's a lot harder to spin things against someone when they're being brutally honest.
after all, we're building up Dubai as the next superpower. It's not like they're going to kiss our asses once they get there. Whose fault is it for the shit we've already stepped in? Twofacing isn't going to fix that. When people talk about the world as sunshine and rainbows while it's fire and brimstone, there is a bit of an issue with two facing.
the damage doesn't exist. that's just the alarmist nature of things.
they said the last wikileaks release was embarrassing and damaging, damned the whole thing, and looked what happened?
no damage.
The reality is, the only damage is going to be to the US, for having done fraudulent things and/or basically violated and ignored massive amounts of laws that we legislated to get approved in the first place.
So that leaves us with embarrassing. Is it? yup.
in plenty of situations, it appears like the education part was left out
I love the humor of an industry worrying about having to actually invest in, you know, itself.
This is actually another fearmongering, just like RIAA, VHS, etc all over again.
I expect in a year or two they're going to make comments like "charging your car can place hospitals at risk!" etc etc.
you mean the debunked scenario in the first comment?
slashdot may have political bias, but that doesn't mean people pay attention to when things are a hoax.
the problem is the new system is just as much bullshit as the last.
saying that we are in a continually elevated threat of terrorism (at a minimum) is a complete misnomer.
just because a company does one thing right does not = they've turned over a new leaf.
PCMag has generally been shit, that hasn't changed.
most smart folks have been using encryption from day one and, what do ya know? they also never saw a single lawsuit threat or settlement letter, etc.
so why does the slashdot link claim it passed? It has no weight currently, so it's not even really approved.
most people also like to have cars that don't have a "please steal me" on the inside in the form of a giant touchscreen.
So yes, an ipad or a galaxy tab is probably a much better option.
the constitution doesn't stop just because you're making an airplane flight to somewhere.
personally?
last time I checked you don't waive your 4th and 5th amendment rights by choosing to fly.
Radiation concerns may or may not be legitimate, that's to be proven.
pornographic? well, yeah, it's people's naked bodies and the images are being stored without their consent, so yes that's a concern.
Is someone profiting off of it? Yes, Chertoff, who also happens to be defending the scanners.
Do you have enough foresight to realize what it means if enough people refuse to fly? I'll give you a hint: you won't be having a trans-atlantic flight, because flights are cancelled if enough people don't sign up, as that is the basis for flying in the first place. Unless you can afford roughly 40-50 grand per flight.
I don't care personally, I don't own apple devices or buy apple products.
I'm just saying that this whole "we don't like task managers" and just implemented the framework for one, is quite a bit disingenuous.
apple acknowledging they fucked up again by putting in a status bar when they said that they wouldn't, is a major change.
Yup. go steve jobs.. Do as I say, not as I do?
apparently they forgot that all they have to do to make these scanners less objectionable is to get rid of them.