So if you violate an employement contract its a criminal offense? That you can be arrested for, and go to jail for? Noooope... its a civil contract dispute... employer can sue for damages, that's about it; even if the employer is the federal government.

Rule number ONE of information security is that if you don't want it leaked online... DONT PUT IT ONLINE.

So your solution is not good enough.

You ask that I trade the physical security of an encrypted, air-gapped unit, physically in my hands with a solution that entails all kinds of possible network threats. MITM, SSL vulnerability, zero-day attacks, certificate compromises... and suggest this will improve my security??

No.

Not to mention that it assumes you're moving relatively small amounts of information between countries with good internet access... what if your destination just has shitty internet?

Plus if you legitimize their right to inspect all data at the border, then your just a hop and skip away from giving them the right to inspect your vpn traffic as it crosses the border; and they would be within their rights to demand the encryption keys from you or block your vpn connection. Some governments are already moving in this direction.

So your argument that "don't take it across the boder this way"... "take it across the border this other way" sort of falls completely on its face. Once you say "they can inspect and require you to decrypt data crossing the border" then your VPN is next.

For most legitimate business related cases border security wouldn't really be a risk, even if you gave them the password, and let them fish around in your laptop. They wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to capitalize on it.

But its the principal of the thing; they really have no business being in there. And there is a chance they could learn or reveal something that is damaging.

Frankly, it seems to me the best solution right now; is to ship yourself the data by traceable courier. Small chance it is lost or confiscated at the border. But they don't get anything valuable if that happens, and you can't be arrested on the spot.

That's a valid term as well and the more common one to my ears at least.

Its not so extreme as to be anti-french.

Quebecois is a francophone term. Its pronounced roughly kay-bek-wah. Most anglophones don't pronounce Quebec ("kay-bek") they pronounce it roughly "kwuh-beck". And "Quebecois" doesn't really anglicize well... so Quebecker is pretty common and not meant to be offensive nor anti-french.

I realize that.

A person who backs the bill, who perhaps could and should have said something a LOT MORE INTELLIGENT about it.

So then what is the REAL dispute? That would lead a president to veto it? Or is this whole debate the syphility ramblings of a 24 hour media cycle that can't seem to find any real news to report on in a world of 6 billion people with nearly uncountable real issues to investigate? (And despite my sarcasm... I count that possibility as entirely plausible.)

I never did. So ... there's that.

Again... nobody is redefining science. What are you on about?

One can (and should) post the methodology and results without revealing confidential patient health information, sufficient that another group could reproduce the study.

You do not need to know the names of the participants, and have access to their medical records to reproduce the study. Find your own patients and reproduce the published methodology to lend weight or cast doubt on the original study.

That's how medical research should be done.

Time for your meds.

If I propose we serve beef burgers, and a vegetarian selection at a picnic and someone says, hey that sounds like maybe your suggesting we serve vegetarian PEOPLE as food?!!!

Would I say... "Not to worry, vegetarians may choose to opt-out of eating or being eaten."

Or... would I say? Are you nuts? I obviously didn't mean it that way. Fine, whatever... "I propose we serve beef hot dogs and a green salad"? We good?.. Lets move on.

If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?

From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.

The (Republican) backers response? Apparently they think participants/Patients should sign a waiver agreeing that the raw study data might be made public, or they can simply choose not to participate in the study.

Frankly, I'm disgusted.

The result is clear: very few, if any, studies would be available to the EPA to use as a basis to set policy.

The idea of transparent science is good. But this is clearly an attempt to strip the EPA of any ability to actually do science or regulate based on science.

The iPhone when it came out was far less useful than any of the windows phones, but it took off because it cost more, and did less, while being pretty.

Nope. Multitouch was simply worlds better than stylus + soft or slide out keyboard.

"Visual voicemail" or whatever it was called kicked the ass out of dial-in voicemail which was still the default on windows mobile devices.

And the whole UI being designed for touch instead of stylus made it a LOT easier to use.

Yes, you definitely gave up lots of functionality in terms of the iphone not having stylus, and only being able to interact with it with your fingers; editing a spreadsheet on an iphone 3G was terrible compared to Windows Mobile 5/6... but making a call or appointment or sending a text message was orders of magnitude better.

Not really.

Yes, its important to consider the context classical works were written from. The Flintstones for example or Huck Finn... etc. The various racial and gender issues in them can and should be attributed to values from 1880 or 1960 respectively.

We should of course, bear in mind that Heinlein is writing from the 40s through the 80s and need to keep that in focus, but they are not the background canvas that his works rest on he... he brings the social conventions to the forefront propses that we look at them his way, and in doing so demands that we consider them on their own merits. Whether its that we re-consider the family unit as a business-corporate entity; or to challenge us on incest and pedophilia; or his postulation that libertarian economic policy is ideal.

These are not the context; these are his theses. They demand critique.

Of course, but why are they *fun*? Do you really think it says nothing about you?

They certainly aren't universally viewed as fun; I know many people who would never choose to play one. And of those that do choose to play them their are a variety of motivations and reasons... I outlined some earlier; but there are lot more.

That I even play games says something about me. Which games I choose, and how I choose to play them All reveal a great deal about me. Do I play them on easy or on hard? Do I care about "achievements" ? Do I care if others can see those achievements? Do I use cheats? Do I tend to play Iron man or do I save and reload often? Do I prefer strategy or tactics or reaction? How important are graphics? Do I prefer solo or competitive multiplayer or cooperative? Do I pirate games? Or buy them? Do I wait for sales or buy on realease day? Which games do I buy on release day? Do I choose avatars that are projections of me? (Mayor Sheldon Cooper of Sheldonopolis? Or are they whimsical? Or are they crude... Mayor Farts of Pooplandia? Do I only choose handsome male avatars? Or will I play a female or troll ... or troll female? Does it affect how I behave? Do you finish every quest you start? Do only do quests that give you measurable upgrades? Do you read the quest text? Do you care about the story at all? Do you bother with appearance items at all? Or are you look like a patchwork of mismatched armors? Do you want it to look impressive or fearsome or do you set out to make it look like a joke? Do you get into your character or is it just a puppet you steer around?

To suggest that how you play a game says nothing deep or penetrating about you is to be utterly naive. Sure playing a Rogue doesn't imply you are a criminal. But there's a wealth of information about you from how you play.

Yeah, I second the poster who suggests rereading them again now... except honestly most just weren't THAT good.

Actually I disagree, several of his works had lengthy tangents of just Heinlein channeling message that really didn't connect to the story. Friday for one, Farnham's Freehold for another, Number of the Beast, I will fear no evil, all stand out as examples for me. Probably others... to sail beyond the sunset...etc.

I think Stranger in a Strange Land ... well the commentary on society in that one was integral to the story.

A lot of his work was good, and even his weaker stuff is still worth a read -- some neat stuff explored; but your definitely looking through a window into Heinlein's political, economic, and sexual ideology and it becomes apparent to the point of being an annoying distraction.

Discriminating between saving black vs white avatars does indicate some sort of bias. Deal with it.

Adding green colored avatars would be an interesting experiment; would they similarly be discriminated against on average? Or would their introduction break the "real world to virtual world" parallel in the average mind and lead to any real-world biases not being applied; leading to no discernible bias... or perhaps you need to eliminate black and white as options and only have green, orange, and purple avatars... and then that might be interesting too. Would their be a bias... would people bias towards helping other avatars with the same color as their own avatar... would orange be universally favored regardless of the color of self? Would players own real life colorings affect the displayed bias or lack thereof. I couldn't say.

But if there is a definite bias displayed, then there is a definite bias. Racism is one possible and reasonable explanation that can't be discounted out of hand.

Although depending on the textures and lighting... maybe it was simply because the white ones were easier to see...?

A criminal? no. but it does say something about you; if you examine the reasons why you have a penchant for rogue classes; I'm sure you'll find something out about yourself reflected in that.

I find it interesting you mention pickpocketing at all. My interest in rogue classes tends to focus on their stealth and back stab attacks -- I have a friend who plays rogues and his interest is always in their fast-talk / deception skills. But you... you mentioned pickpocketing... interesting. ;)