IANAL, but I believe this is the Supreme Court decision that later case law was established upon that basically permits any LEO to lie (not in court though). So basically case law carves out an exemption specifically for law enforcement.
Also, this article demonstrates how easy it is to get ensnared by the feds on a lying charge. Scary stuff.
On the other hand the US Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not constitutionally required to tell the truth.
Right on! This is why dealing with the feds is so dangerous: They can lie to you with impunity, and your answers to their lies are still admissible in court.
Lying itself can't be a crime
Actually, 18 USC section 1001 does, in fact, make lying to a federal official a crime. Feds often use this law to convict people in lieu of having any evidence that a crime was committed. If you're questioned about an alleged crime, and it later turns out that you didn't commit the crime but you earlier statements don't sync up with later statements, there's a good chance you'll see jail time.
This is why you never talk to law enforcement officers without competent legal representation present. And especially the Feds.
Bruce Schneier himself advises avoiding elliptic-curve, as being intellectually tainted by the spooks. [theguardian.com]
I didn't see any such recommendation in the linked article. However, there is a comment in this article in which he does make such a statement. Schneier seems to have reversed himself on advocating the use of elliptic-curve ciphers.
Holy shit! That is just plain crazy. That must be some strong velcro holding the back of his suit together...
...from behind a car stopped in traffic. I never saw him, and and he never looked my way. I was traveling about 30 mph, and later reconstruction of the incident by the county sheriff's office (used in my defense during the civil court case) showed that there was probably less than 2 seconds between when he stepped out and when I hit him. I seriously doubt this app would have helped him or anyone else in a similar situation.
BTW, he was issued a ticket in the hospital for "failure to yield right of way to motor vehicle." Never knew there was such a law, and it certainly helped in my defense. (Needless to say, the insurance company paid anyway because it was cheaper than going to court.)
...and this is what I found:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5301896/what-are-the-differences-between-openid-and-myopenid
So my question: If myOpenID is "one of many providers," why does this rate an article of its own? Or am I missing the significance of the event?
I apologize for the personal attack. Not sure why I did that. Guess I let my emotions get the better of me.
Still, fuck RBLs. Sadly, many who should know better do not weight RBLs, and instead outright reject any mail that scores a hit. These operators are slowly destroying the email infrastructure by not only fragmenting and marginalizing the smaller email providers (including individuals who choose to responsibly run their own SMTP service), but by implicitly forcing individuals to seek mail services through corporate providers (think "do no evil"). I have gotten to the point where I simply tell subscribers to the lists I admin that they will have to use another ISP if they want to subscribe because their email provider blindly defers to one or more RBLs, most of which are dodgy to begin with (think pay to play, or let's ban entire subnets because we aren't technologically adept enough to filter on just one IP address).
At this point he can then run the mail through a series of weighted RBLs.
Fuck you and your RBLs. RBLs are a draconian solution that do immeasurable damage to those of us who (1) aren't spammers, and (2) choose to run our own mailservers on business-class IPs. I can't tell you how many times various IPs I use for outbound mail (I run several mailing lists) end up on an RBL for absolutely no fucking reason.
Oh, because someone in the same
RBLs are a solution in search of a problem. Some of them are nothing more than moneymakers for the people that run them: In order to get off their list, they blackmail you into paying money.
Want to do the world a favor? Don't use RBLs. You'll just end up finding yourself blacklisted at some point anyway.
have you tried spamassassin?
Don't follow this advice. SA has become so slow that it's almost useless. On a VM with 1GB RAM, it takes anywhere from 15-60 seconds to process a single e-mail, and is an incredible resource hog. I've been running SA for years, run the latest stuff, and have pretty much done every tweak imaginable. And the default rules are about useless now as well: The scores are set so low that you have to set a low threshold, increasing your false positive rate. About 50% of the mail on my mail server (personal use, maybe 200-300 inbound messages a day, 90% spam) just gets passed due to spamd timing out.
Unfortunately, there appear to be no decent alternatives out there. Greylisting is nice, but spammers are wising up to it, and simply resend spam. There was a time about 3-4 years ago that zero spam came through (same inbound volume)...now, it's more like 5-10 a day. Not that I'm complaining. My point being that switching over to SA will not solve any of the submitter's resource woes with procmail.
Bedbugs are known to drop down onto beds from the ceiling. They can also crawl (not jump) from furniture that happens to be touching the bed as well.
Sorry, folks, but no Master's in CS is worth $45,000, and certainly not from Georgia Tech when better schools offer the same for half the tuition (Univ. of Texas comes to mind), and regional schools for a quarter of this. This seems to be nothing more than a marketing ploy to show what a good "deal" you could get if you went 100% online while at the same time inflating the quality of the on-campus program at Georgia Tech.
The only one I know of is down I-45 in Garrett. Where are the others?
Fuck you.
The other day a Google tech recruiter (not a headhunter) contacted me about an interview at Google. This after I turned down a second interview with them seven years ago. Yes, seven years ago. It got me to thinking: Is Google that desperate for qualified employees that they are having to dig that deep into their interview files to find talent? After doing some research, it seems as though they want to interview me for a "technical sales engineering" position or some such thing. Still, this article and the fact that Google is searching their archives for help seems to point to a dwindling supply of technical types in the market.
And since I'm a few years older than Vince Vaughan, I seriously doubt I'd quite fit in anymore. Say what you want about The Internship, but Google's imprimatur was all over it.
BLISS is ignorance.
