"prevention...of or compensation for an injury" (to the threatened elderly/disabled potential victim of a violent crime).
"sustaining life" (again, for the carrier)
This is the same way every weapon can be used to prevent injury.
The best defense is the threat of force followed up by action if necessary.
Every community where carry permits are issued in large quantity demonstrably faces lower crime rates than areas where weapons-possession is restricted to police and criminals.
I'm not suggesting that we taxpayers should be arming the elderly, but I am guessing what this snippet of an article isn't telling you is that the purpose of classifying this devices medically was to allow exceptions to the general rule that these weapons be prohibited from sale to individuals on the grounds that they are too small and too easily concealed. The medical prescription would allow someone who can't control a full-sized weapon to carry this (otherwise illegal) version in order to defend themselves.
I have always had an unlisted, unpublished phone number, and never give my number to stores, websites, etc. Additionally, whenever it is required that I provide a real phone number (such as credit card companies), I always insist on written confirmation that the number will not be sold (a habit that is quite common in the credit card industry especially). I receive no more than 1-2 unsolicited phone calls per year, that (according to the clown on the other end of the line) was randomly generated by a computer (as opposed to having been on a list). I was very skeptical of providing my name and number to a government-controlled list in order to not be called, so chose to not sign up for that. I know a few others who have similar habits (unlisted, unpublished phone numbers and never give their number out) who did sign up for Do Not Call. Their results have been mixed - some have received a few non-profit solicitations (which hadn't been occurring before), others have not. The ones who are receiving new calls are convinced that Do Not Call is the source. I haven't researched who has access to the list, but if non-profits are exempt and they have access to the list, then this could be the case. For now, if you are receiving calls and wish not to, I recommend changing your phone number and requesting that it be both unlisted and unpublished, practice strict control of to whom you give it, and stay off of Do Not Call (it is both unnecessary and risky given the unknowns of which exempt organizations have access to the list).
This ruling shouldn't come as a surprise. The ACLU is notorious for filing suits in courts that will likely decide (based on previous decisions by a court on similar cases) in their favor. As such, I would be surprised if this decision wasn't expected by even the government. The real battle will be in the appeals process.
Seems like we Bostonians (I think I losely count up here in NH as I am in the city a few times each month) are going from one extreme to the next. The Big Dig was a ginormous undertaking that (I think) has exceded 15 Billion dollars (most of which seems to have payed for poor-engineering/low-quality craftsmanship/political campaigns (on both sides of the aisle)/etc...Now, we are afraid to spend any money on WiFi, so we are going to tap a non-profit to do it for us?!?
I am so sick of hearing people/articles complaining about RFID insinuating that simply because people don't know how to utilize it properly, it is an evil idea to implement it (for security purposes)...It is pretty similar to WiFi in that people who don't really know what they are doing will put it out there with no enccryption because they are stupid/careless, but the techology is there to lock it down. The RFID tags we use at my company cost ~$1.50, and have encyption capabilities. The way these cards work is the RFID reader/writer sends a signal activating the card. The card responds and you then have to provide it with the correct encryption key before it will send ANY data. In addition, the response time is (by-design) a slow.07 seconds, so to try to crack the 12 digit hex key by brute force could take up to 624 thousand years.
Additionally, the readers we utilize have a relatively weak signal that is only good for a few inches, so for someone to try to steal the key while it is in the air, they would have to be pretty much touching the reader and the rfid chip during that.07 second transaction...
People using unencrypted RFID are asking for trouble, but if you want to implement it securely, there are paths you can take to do so with confidence.
OK? I still don't see what's wrong with that. It is an open service this guy has available to anyone (singular or plural). DLink is merely using the free service that is available to the public - without bypassing security of any kind...seems like it is fair game to me..
Seems to me that if you run a (public) NTP server with a publicly available IP address and/or DNS resolution, that means anyone (public) can use the (public) service - no?
Since you brought up the car analogy, I just have to go to bat for Microsoft here and I am going to use the car analogy to do so...
When you buy a car, it comes with a factory installed stereo. Not everyone in the world has the capability to swap out that stereo for a nice Alpine head unit with a couple of amplifiers, a sub-woofer, component speakers, etc...but it is possible. If you can't do it, at least they gave you a stereo. Microsoft is simply doing the same thing - providing software to their customers, and the default options are just that - defaults. If you don't like them, you can choose not to buy their software, or to change the defaults, but what they are doing is simply providing you with the defaults. They are even going beyond their obligations by providing you with the tools to change the defaults...If you want to swap out the stereo in your car, take a look at the wires when you pull out the factory installed unit (all non-standard colors). You have to buy a book or a wire-kit or search the net (using google of course) to get the wire-mapping).
All you socialist, anti-Microsoft whiners really bother me when you rant about Microsoft's (current) anti-competative actions. It seems obvious that ANY company is going to try as hard as they can to get all of their own products to work together as seemlessly as possible so you will keep giving them money...that's the whole point of being in business. Microsoft's only obligation is to not prevent the competition from being able to compete, not to help them. Back in the day, you all had a point (back when it was discovered that Microsoft had secret tricks to make their software run faster/better than the competition), but those days seem to be gone as far as I can tell (Firefox is a far-superior browser than ie - and loads a page just as fast (or faster) - and with true w3c compliance). Now it comes down to this - Advertise your product; Get people to tell their friends/coworkers about it; Make sure it is the best product when compared to the competition; and Hope for the best, but stop blaming the big mean company for your inablility to break into the market you seek to lead...Google didn't become the de-facto standard for searching the web by crying about Yahoo!, Alta-Vista, and msn - they did it by putting out an incredible product that everyone wanted to use because it worked better than the rest (as determined by the number of people who migrated to it).
Slashdot Mirror
"prevention...of or compensation for an injury" (to the threatened elderly/disabled potential victim of a violent crime). "sustaining life" (again, for the carrier)
This is the same way every weapon can be used to prevent injury.
The best defense is the threat of force followed up by action if necessary.
Every community where carry permits are issued in large quantity demonstrably faces lower crime rates than areas where weapons-possession is restricted to police and criminals.
I'm not suggesting that we taxpayers should be arming the elderly, but I am guessing what this snippet of an article isn't telling you is that the purpose of classifying this devices medically was to allow exceptions to the general rule that these weapons be prohibited from sale to individuals on the grounds that they are too small and too easily concealed. The medical prescription would allow someone who can't control a full-sized weapon to carry this (otherwise illegal) version in order to defend themselves.
I have always had an unlisted, unpublished phone number, and never give my number to stores, websites, etc. Additionally, whenever it is required that I provide a real phone number (such as credit card companies), I always insist on written confirmation that the number will not be sold (a habit that is quite common in the credit card industry especially). I receive no more than 1-2 unsolicited phone calls per year, that (according to the clown on the other end of the line) was randomly generated by a computer (as opposed to having been on a list). I was very skeptical of providing my name and number to a government-controlled list in order to not be called, so chose to not sign up for that. I know a few others who have similar habits (unlisted, unpublished phone numbers and never give their number out) who did sign up for Do Not Call. Their results have been mixed - some have received a few non-profit solicitations (which hadn't been occurring before), others have not. The ones who are receiving new calls are convinced that Do Not Call is the source. I haven't researched who has access to the list, but if non-profits are exempt and they have access to the list, then this could be the case. For now, if you are receiving calls and wish not to, I recommend changing your phone number and requesting that it be both unlisted and unpublished, practice strict control of to whom you give it, and stay off of Do Not Call (it is both unnecessary and risky given the unknowns of which exempt organizations have access to the list).
This ruling shouldn't come as a surprise. The ACLU is notorious for filing suits in courts that will likely decide (based on previous decisions by a court on similar cases) in their favor. As such, I would be surprised if this decision wasn't expected by even the government. The real battle will be in the appeals process.
Seems like we Bostonians (I think I losely count up here in NH as I am in the city a few times each month) are going from one extreme to the next. The Big Dig was a ginormous undertaking that (I think) has exceded 15 Billion dollars (most of which seems to have payed for poor-engineering/low-quality craftsmanship/political campaigns (on both sides of the aisle)/etc...Now, we are afraid to spend any money on WiFi, so we are going to tap a non-profit to do it for us?!?
Yes. Take away the credit cards, checkbook, ATM/debit cards, etc.
I am so sick of hearing people/articles complaining about RFID insinuating that simply because people don't know how to utilize it properly, it is an evil idea to implement it (for security purposes)...It is pretty similar to WiFi in that people who don't really know what they are doing will put it out there with no enccryption because they are stupid/careless, but the techology is there to lock it down. The RFID tags we use at my company cost ~$1.50, and have encyption capabilities. The way these cards work is the RFID reader/writer sends a signal activating the card. The card responds and you then have to provide it with the correct encryption key before it will send ANY data. In addition, the response time is (by-design) a slow .07 seconds, so to try to crack the 12 digit hex key by brute force could take up to 624 thousand years.
.07 sec) / (60 sec/min) / (60 min/hr) / (24 hr/day) / (365 day/yr) = 624786 years
.07 second transaction...
(&HFFFFFFFFFFFF *
Additionally, the readers we utilize have a relatively weak signal that is only good for a few inches, so for someone to try to steal the key while it is in the air, they would have to be pretty much touching the reader and the rfid chip during that
People using unencrypted RFID are asking for trouble, but if you want to implement it securely, there are paths you can take to do so with confidence.
Thanks for the wiki link - very informative...I stand corrected.
OK? I still don't see what's wrong with that. It is an open service this guy has available to anyone (singular or plural). DLink is merely using the free service that is available to the public - without bypassing security of any kind...seems like it is fair game to me..
Seems to me that if you run a (public) NTP server with a publicly available IP address and/or DNS resolution, that means anyone (public) can use the (public) service - no?
How do you find/download ie without the native/integrated browser? I can't think of a (modern) OS that doesn't have a bundled browser...
Since you brought up the car analogy, I just have to go to bat for Microsoft here and I am going to use the car analogy to do so... When you buy a car, it comes with a factory installed stereo. Not everyone in the world has the capability to swap out that stereo for a nice Alpine head unit with a couple of amplifiers, a sub-woofer, component speakers, etc...but it is possible. If you can't do it, at least they gave you a stereo. Microsoft is simply doing the same thing - providing software to their customers, and the default options are just that - defaults. If you don't like them, you can choose not to buy their software, or to change the defaults, but what they are doing is simply providing you with the defaults. They are even going beyond their obligations by providing you with the tools to change the defaults...If you want to swap out the stereo in your car, take a look at the wires when you pull out the factory installed unit (all non-standard colors). You have to buy a book or a wire-kit or search the net (using google of course) to get the wire-mapping). All you socialist, anti-Microsoft whiners really bother me when you rant about Microsoft's (current) anti-competative actions. It seems obvious that ANY company is going to try as hard as they can to get all of their own products to work together as seemlessly as possible so you will keep giving them money...that's the whole point of being in business. Microsoft's only obligation is to not prevent the competition from being able to compete, not to help them. Back in the day, you all had a point (back when it was discovered that Microsoft had secret tricks to make their software run faster/better than the competition), but those days seem to be gone as far as I can tell (Firefox is a far-superior browser than ie - and loads a page just as fast (or faster) - and with true w3c compliance). Now it comes down to this - Advertise your product; Get people to tell their friends/coworkers about it; Make sure it is the best product when compared to the competition; and Hope for the best, but stop blaming the big mean company for your inablility to break into the market you seek to lead...Google didn't become the de-facto standard for searching the web by crying about Yahoo!, Alta-Vista, and msn - they did it by putting out an incredible product that everyone wanted to use because it worked better than the rest (as determined by the number of people who migrated to it).