Well, if Hamas didn't use hospitals, mosques, and playgrounds as rocket launch sites then there might be less to complain about when Israel bombs their rocket launch sites.
But then Hamas wouldn't have all those photos of dead and injured children to propagandize via the world's newsmedia.
"Reduction In Force".
Companies like to use that term instead of "Mass Layoffs". They think it sounds nicer.
Follow the money. Selling taxi medallions is a huge source of revenue and graft.
That is true but the summary refers to Brooklyn and Queens, a.k.a. "outer boroughs" (anything that isn't Manhattan). The outer boroughs now have "Green Taxis" which do not bear medallions, and there are about 15,000 of them so far:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/shl_passenger.shtml
NYC also has "livery" cabs which can be summoned via phone, in contrast to "taxis" which are hailed on the street. Livery cabs don't bear medallions either.
The concerns about Lyft and Uber probably is more about the proper training and licensing of drivers, liability insurance coverage, adherance to laws (like non-discrimination in picking up passengers, and like fair labor practices). Not medallions.
From what I've read (and I only skimmed this thread so maybe I missed something) they are "going after Amazon" because the "parental controls" that they provide on their product get reset every time there's an update to the device.
Imagine if the root password and all of the access controls on the servers in your machine room got reset each time you ran an update on the OS. You'd be pretty pissed I bet.
I agree with you that a driver must drive in such a way that he (or she) can avoid collisions. However the law apparently doesn't recognize that, at least in many jurisdictions.
Take for example the curious case recently in Canada where the driver of a car stopped on a highway to rescue some baby ducks who had wandered onto it. A motorcyclist with his child on board slammed into the rear of the stopped car and both dad and child died. The driver of the car has been convicted for negligence and faces "life" (2 x 14 years) in prison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html
This is tragic for the family of the dead man and child. It is also tragic for the driver of the car though. Clearly she should not have parked on the highway, but the motorcyclist should not have rammed into a stopped vehicle. That car could just as well have broken down on the road and he still would have slammed into it. Drivers have to pay attention and drive carefully. The first step may be to slow down. Speed limits have become too high.
In 1964 an increase in the New York City speed limit was forced upon the city by the New York State Legislature against protest by the NYC Traffic Commssioner Henry Barnes (of the famous "Barnes Dance" protocol). Today Mayor Bill de Blasio is working to lower it back to 25 in most places, and to 20 in higher risk areas.
We need to back off from the mindset that moving motor vehicle traffic as quickly as possible is properly the primary goal of traffic planners. Safety must be moved into first place.
If he simply inspected their systems, fixed any holes he knew about, provided no information to the bank about what he had done except a note to say "your system is now more secure" that might be okay.
That assumes that the existing client staff wouldn't have a clue about how to compare the systems baselines before his security changes with the state of the systems after. The diffferences between the two states would contain the "secret".
When someone who formerly dealt with highly classified information in government writes a book, the usual deal is that the book's contents get vetted by ${security_agency} before publication. It's a lot more difficult to do that type of thing if the guy is using that information to secure a client's systems.
So I can understand the concern here.
We (the US) would be better off providing such folks with golden parachutes to avoid having to tell them not to try to profit from what they learned on the job, after they leave.
How about iPads and other tablet devices that aren't phones but are likely to hold even more personal data than a phone does?
And how about a ruled and bound notebook that traditionally has held personal data? Maybe if I attach two tin cans and some waxed string to it they'll classify it as a phone and then I won't have to worry that they'll find evidence of on it.
What does "funny" feel like?
(Serious question, not trolling you.)
Can't you disable wifi on their cable modem and connect the modem to your own wifi access point? Or if not, put the modem into a Faraday cage and then connect it to your own access point?
(Yes, I know, outside the limits of ability of "most" of their customers.)
Exactly my thinking also. The multimillion dollar legal fees are the driving force and as usual in class actions, the class members get peanuts (not to defame actual peanuts, they are quite nourishing).
Or the plaintiffs' lawyers already received a "pre-settlement bonus" from the defendant companies' petty cash boxes.
Either way, the plaintiffs got screwed.
[ Because we all love anecdotal evidence, here's some of mine ]
And when I called Crucial to RMA the 4 brand new memory modules that were producing errors nonstop (when all 4 were installed, but not when only any 2 were installed) under memtest86 while other vendors' memory in the same system ran rock solid, I was told that it is probably a temperature issue and to run the system with a desktop fan blowing over the RAM. A desktop fan, like a Vornado "air circulator" they meant (and I verified), not a computer-mounted 80mm, 120mm, etc., fan. They refused to RMA the memory because I didn't have a desktop fan blowing on it.
Maybe it was just the crazy folks I happened to speak with that day, and the next day, I don't know, but I stopped buying Crucial memory after that and have stuck with Corsair, Kingston, and OCZ without problems.
And the Chicago Manual of Style Online says
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage.html?page=1
Q. I work for an organization that uses a fair amount of corporate lingo in its publications. The expression "visibility into" seems to be widely used in place of the expression "insight into" . . . this confuses me (okay, it also annoys me). Based on the common definition of "visibility," does it really make sense to say that one has "visibility into" something? Before I start a campaign to eradicate what I see as an unsightly phrase, can you tell me if the phrase "visibility into" meets the standards of acceptable usage?
A. Sometimes it's necessary to avoid turning your nose up at a word or phrase that seems to be the awkward brainchild of new ventures -- unless, of course, something old and standard does the job as well or better. A glance at the first hundred or so of the 147,000-odd Google hits (as of Monday, October 20, 2003) for "visibility into" suggests that the phrase is being used these days primarily to do a couple of things: (1) convey that whatever is going on -- corporate accounting, say -- is entirely transparent, or (2) indicate that software can offer some understanding of activities that are difficult to conceptualize or see -- such as data from myriad sources moving over a network, or products moving along a supply chain. An example of the second use might go like this:
Without the kind of software that provides continuous visibility into activity across a range of networks using a variety of protocols, you might as well send your entire staff on a field trip, asking them to report back every few seconds with a question: "Can you hear me now"?
This sort of usage can easily turn into jargon (or euphemism; think "surveillance"), but I wouldn't automatically rush to find a substitute. First, the phrase itself doesn't violate any grammatical rules. Second, in technical contexts that involve physical monitoring, "visibility into" might be more appropriate than the relatively metaphorical "insight into" -- a phrase that's lost most of its visual roots.
But, yes, it's the Chicago Manual of Style. Go find out what Oxford says, will you? And let us know.
The popehat URL you posted has as the very first item a sad tale of two extortionists getting convicted because they spoke to the FBI. Was that one of the "several great posts" you were referring to?
The popular press incorrectly "reports" lots of thing that are just plain wrong. However heartbleed.com already explained that such detection was possible if an IDS were looking for the fingerprint:
Can IDS/IPS detect or block this attack?
Although the content of the heartbeat request is encrypted it has its own record type in the protocol. This should allow intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDS/IPS) to be trained to detect use of the heartbeat request. Due to encryption differentiating between legitimate use and attack can not be based on the content of the request, but the attack may be detected by comparing the size of the request against the size of the reply. This seems to imply that IDS/IPS can be programmed to detect the attack but not to block it unless heartbeat requests are blocked altogether.
It's just that now that a patch is available most folks would rather just fix the problem than watch their systems get compromised. And like Johann Lau already noted, not many sites keep an archive of all the network traffic that has passed through their site, so retrospective analysis is extremely unlikely.
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
