You really have no idea. Go find a Mosin Nagant, an ancient Russian military rifle capable of hitting a target at over 200 yards with a high-power round for about $100.

Are expensive guns better than cheap ones? Sure! But there are cheap (and effective) guns for anyone who wants one.

(A clip is not a magazine...)

Yeah, are you sick of that story of the Indian kid who got his CISSP at the age of 12? Well, here's a 5 year old with a published vulnerability!

Can someone explain how the government can impose penalties on a person without providing the evidence against them?

No.

Judge William Alsup also ruled on the Oracle/Google case. The more you know! ;)

Trademark, not copyright. But yes, trademarking a color seems excessive.

In other news, Carolyn Lawson has apparently never worked a large IT development for government before.

Hey, it's an approach. Nothing works until it gets past a judge. It would have made for a better argument than the one he used (maybe).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting a street thug. But law is a logic puzzle mixed with human irrationality. For instance, check out the genius who called me an idiot below. "That's not fair, so it can't be right!" Nope, doesn't work that way.

"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."

Citation needed.

Actually, he could have protected himself with, "B*TCH! Get out of my house!" If she isn't on the lease, then she is staying as a guest. If the permission for a guest to stay is rescinded and she stays, she is now a trespasser. Trespassers cannot give consent to a search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Maybe if the state of California read the First Amendment, there wouldn't be a need to fine code bootcamp operators.

(Hint: Commercial speech is still speech.)

The card brands call the shots when this much sh!t hits the fan, but, yeah.

Not here. Target's pos pos is homebrew.

If by "don't want to compromise the investigation" they mean "don't want to let the crooks know what we know", they have already failed. Any action to remove material now is simply playing to politics.

Personally, I think the value of publishing the data is higher than not tipping your cards to crooks. They know what they left behind.

Proper forensics protocols state that you NEVER work with the original media, only copies.