I wonder if you could goto prison for an intentionally doctored picture presented by the cops? If you knowingly present an altered photograph as evidence at a trial, I would guess that that qualifies as perjury and/or obstruction of justice. Giving it to the police might only get you something like filing a false report. Either way, it would be bad for you.
Now if you're stupid enough to think it's a historical document then you're on your own. Why's that? It may not be (okay, okay, isn't) completely factual, but how many history books are? A lot of facts are always lost, leaving behind only what historians, authors, and the general populace want to remember.
If someone tells me that they are going to kill another person and then goes and kills that person, why should the fact that I am a journalist make a difference in whether or not the courts/police can compel me to tell them who it is? What if the person who told me, also told me they were going to kill someone else? I think the difference in your example is that you would have knowledge of a specific crime being committed. In most cases, it's not a crime (yet) to leak information about the government. If a journalist was told by an anonymous source that some politician murdered someone (in the usual legal definition of the word, not the he-started-a-war definition), it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a court to compel testimony from the journalist about what they know.
Despite my best efforts, I couldn't get the users to stop unzipping and opening it*
* Before I get 10 million suggestions for a decade-past issue, yes we did find more effective ways of blocking it. I don't think that's the footnote I would have gone for with that expression.
I could be wrong, but Slashdot is considered a "social network" according to their guidelines. As if Slashdot readers know anything about being social.
Ginko also isn't a "bank" in the usual term of the word; it's not regulated or insured in any way and isn't impacted by any of the legal requirements of real world financial institutions. Quite frankly; you're an idiot if you trust them with your money. So they're the Second Life version of PayPal?
Therein lies the rub. When entering data into Facebook, you're sending it on a one-way trip. Want to show somebody a video or a picture you posted to your profile? Unless they also have an account, they can't see it. Your pictures, videos and everything else is stranded in a walled garden, cut off from the rest of the web. Maybe I'm misreading this, but the writer does realize that posting pictures on Facebook doesn't destroy your local copy of the files, right? If you want someone to see pictures that you put on Facebook, and they don't have an account, you can just send them through normal email.
There are reasons to block it, and anything else the user wants to install on their own. Except they apparently didn't block a user from installing Firefox, but only prevent a program named firefox.exe from running.
Re:Four ways to hide the .php extension
on
MSN Censors Your IM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Still, the administrator of a server running PHP 5 can get scripts to run without having.php in the URL by using various forms of content negotiation: Another option is to use the AddType directive to have other file extensions run through the PHP interpreter. If you don't have any static pages on your site or can accept the minor performance hit, you can send all.html files through PHP.
I'm not familiar with the shows in question, but I have difficulty believing that there are things worse than Enterprise. Try reading the rest of the post then. He did mention Voyager.
That's pretty much correct. If I remember correctly, it's because anything that has G-d's name on it is considered holy writing, and the only proper way to dispose of holy writings (which includes prayer books and the like) is by burying them. One of the other methods used to work around the issue on hand-written things is to squeeze an extra 'o' into the middle of the word, turning it into the word "Good".
I know of some sites which let you use any length you like, but only the first N is actually checked. This works both ways - great for people like you who want to enter whole sentences, as long as enough is stored to make the password secure. Huh? Hashes (of the same type, obviously) are always the same length, no matter what the initial string is. There is never any technical reason to reject any password, no matter how many (or few) or which characters the password contains.
must have at least one number and be from 6-100 characters. Otherwise it narrows the possibilities down a bit much. Technically, any restriction at all makes passwords take less time to brute force, since it reduces the number of possibilities. If the minimum length is 6 characters, there's no point in checking passwords shorter than that, so a brute force attack would just start at 6 characters. Requiring numbers and other special characters has a similar effect. Anything that reduces the size of password space is not a security improvement.
That person then replied that as a foreigner I had no rights in the US. That might technically be true (e.g. I don't know if you could be prevented from buying firearms solely because you aren't a U.S. citizen), but you still can't be (legitimately) arrested for something that isn't illegal. Even if you technically don't have constitutional rights, I don't think that any law enforcement would try anything for fear of a massive international uproar. Unless they can find a way to label you as a terrorist, of course. Then all bets are off.
Yes, but now they Hi-def pixelated. I'm still trying to work out what that phrase means. It's a pixelated image that's so crystal clear that you can see every detail on the... oh, wait, never mind.
Personally, I would say that if those two people shooting portraits in a park aren't blocking a walkway, they shouldn't need a permit. I can't say for certain if the law is worded that way or not. Like I've said elsewhere, I think the idea of the law is a good one, it's just a matter of getting the wording right so that it has the intended effect.
As opposed to the big internet companies that want net neutrality? Oh right, they're not evil because they say they aren't. They're slightly less evil on this issue because they're at least doing what they're supposed to do. We may all hate the idea, but the companies are doing what will, they hope, make them more money. The government, on the other hand, is theoretically supposed to represent the people. A company's first concern is itself; an elected representative's first concern is supposed to be the constituents.
I want a new 3rd party real canidate. Not a Joseph Leiberman Lieberman isn't really a third-party candidate. The only reason he's listed as an Independent is because the far-left Democrats in Connecticut thought he was too conservative and voted for someone else in the primary, but all of the moderate (and probably some not-so-moderate) Republicans easily made up for it in the general election. In the end, though, Lieberman may be a good example of what's wrong with the primary system in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
How about DumpTruck?
200 HP? Is your shit a 20th level Barbarian or something?
That's pretty much correct. If I remember correctly, it's because anything that has G-d's name on it is considered holy writing, and the only proper way to dispose of holy writings (which includes prayer books and the like) is by burying them. One of the other methods used to work around the issue on hand-written things is to squeeze an extra 'o' into the middle of the word, turning it into the word "Good".
No problem. I was just rather confused. It happens a lot when you reach my age.
I'm sorry, did you actually mean to reply to my post? I don't see where you wrote anything related to what I wrote.
God damned Mongolians always knocking down my city wall!
The subject said obligatory, and it doesn't get much more obligatory than that.
Personally, I would say that if those two people shooting portraits in a park aren't blocking a walkway, they shouldn't need a permit. I can't say for certain if the law is worded that way or not. Like I've said elsewhere, I think the idea of the law is a good one, it's just a matter of getting the wording right so that it has the intended effect.