Forget it. They'll just smash the window and replace it, or haul it onto a flatbed and work on it at their leisure.

Are you sure the thief won't just move onto the next car whose door was left unlocked?

The trouble with smashing windows is, they're made out of tempered auto glass and can be rather resistant to having projectiles thrown at them; it's also possible to reinforce the windows so they can't be smashed very easily, even by lobbing a brick at them.

Also; they make it very obvious in public that you are attempting a security defeat by a thief, and it will look suspicious to be driving around with a big hole in your window. Noone wants to smash their own window, and now you'll have a huge mess to clean up.

They are for vaccines, but their use in medicine is no longer recommended due to cross-contamination risks.

If they're indeed painless however; the risk might be low enough that it's a worthwhile tradeoff, in case it means more people will opt for the vaccine.

Needles may be safer, but fewer people may get vaccinated due to perceived pain that will be required.

He'll be submitting a "Right to be forgotten" request on the Slashdot URL for this article to Google, as well as the URLs to all postings by other media and blogs. Followed by a demand that Slashdot take down the article and the comments page under RTBF

If using DuckDuckGo, then maybe you'll be presumed to have had something to hide; therefore, you automatically lose the action.

Such is the way of tyrannical systems which don't respect personal privacy...

They don't need an act of congress; they just need to chip away at the DMCA safe harbor through legal challenges that existing search engines are complicit with infringement due to not using industry-standard algorithms as a policy of deterring infringement, such as Disney's patented algorithm.

Good luck with that, the People most likely to get campaign material are people who actually vote and the people most likely to vote this year are the people who voted last election.

I would call this a privacy violation. I didn't opt in to receive any of this spam.

This could be handled simply: No unsolicited personalized direct mail to voters. Appoint an administrator to allow candidates to pay a specified flat fee to include a flier in a monthly mailing for the 3 months before an election day to all registered voters who have opted in.

Voters who wish to receive further messages from a candidate may send in a reply form.

A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught

I agree with the record being public; However, there should be a terms of use. It should not be simply freely available for all uses without restriction --- it should be available for on-premises review by any member of the public who signs an agreement but no note-taking, information extraction, disseminating or copying the information without filling out an application, showing a legitimate use, and providing a surety bond to protect the information and use only as approved.

Generating marketing or campaign materials based on names in the list or voting rosters or republishing names should be strictly prohibited.

Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public.

It depends on context. It is possible that there are ways they could republish details gathered from public records which would be damaging.

For example; it may be technically public, however, individuals do not ordinarily disseminate the information. If their actions "advertised" or made the information more easily accessible, then it would still be a damaging intrusion.

If they contact your neighbors or employers, provide a website with clickable links to your neighbors and easy search lookup, Tweet to your followers, or send messages to your Facebook friends, then they have actually taken additional actions which are defamatory and call undue attention to the records, which is intrusive, and there may be compensating damages to be recovered, if financial loss results, such as an employee being fired because they learned through Twitter that their Employee failed to vote.

How is this really any different than requiring you to surrender a key to a locked filing cabinet?

The key is a physical piece of property just like your physical phone which can be lawfully seized.

Technically isn't your fingerprint also information which is stored outside your brain?

Your fingerprint is information, BUT the application of your fingerprint to indicate your approval is a kind of signature, just like if you can't write, going to the bank, and using your fingerprint to approve a withdrawl is a form of validation.

The police have a gather information which constitutes your fingerprint, BUT they have no right to severe your finger, or to use their access to the information to impersonate you such as by using the information to defraud another person or service that they are you.

Same deal if you have a signature stamp which allows you to approve documents by applying a stamp; the police can seize the physical asset, but they have no right to pretend to be you and apply the signature stamp to a document advising your personal lawyer to take some action, such as drop the case, or produce a recording of your private session.

Also.... your iPhone has a built-in signature verifying device, and they have no right to forge your personal signature to impersonate you and cause your Apple product to take some action.

This is like being required to sign your name.

The security feature on your phone is designed to not unlock unless you signify approval.

Giving up a key or DNA sample is not signifying your approval; it's just surrendering information which is stored outside your brain.

So I thought it might be instructive to turn the question around and ask the membership about what makes SysVInit or Upstart good.

There, fixed it for you.

Post each new Nice Thing as a new post, not as a reply to another post.

CHECK.

Nice thing about SysV Init: It is simple, just works, and the project adheres to the unix philosophy. There is no NTP client software in the package, there is no DHCP client software in the package, there are rarely updates to the SysVInit or Upstart projects themselves, and updating doesn't require a reboot.

Only one concrete Nice Thing about SysVInit/Upstart per base-level post.

CHECK

Not "for free". Settlement Free Peering is based on a mostly balanced flow of traffic. The instant that ratio moves from 1:1 to 100:1 .... "free" isn't in the room anymore.

And THIS is what makes them not common carriers; ISPs can do this. In the Telco world, interconnect fees are required to be symmetric, for example: if the agreement is that charges carrier A $0.05 per call record to terminate onto carrier B's network, then it must charge carrier B $0.05 a call to terminate onto carrier A's network, it's not allowed to charge carrier A $0.05 per call and give carrier B free service into carrier A's network. An interconnect agreement cannot be terminated or repriced to favor specific networks, just based on the ratio of calls in or out.

Since when were fibre cables, $20000 optics, Switch ports, and 40-Gigabit port licenses free when the link is turned off?

That would have zero impact. This is like the telephone company in city A have 96 channels to the telephone company in city B, but then 100 people try to make calls. Only some of them will go through, and that's a capacity issue, not regulated by Common Carrier status.

That's not the scenario. It's not capacity between cities, in this case, it is capacity between networks. The problem is they are discriminating against some networks and refusing to build capacity at the same time as they are building capacity to other networks for free; that's not a common carrier.

A telco expands capacity based on utilization, and in building more capacity to other networks in the same area: it's not a case of some networks get capacity built to them for free and some have to pay, it's..... each telco pays their own costs to build that capacity needed by their customers AND asymmetric usage is settled through the USAGE fees associated with LD termination on each call.

P.S. Alternatively, the information can be uploaded in encrypted format + Base64 to places such as Pastebin, or Freenet, or other massively distributed publication platform.

The card can then contain just a few 40-character URLs followed by 512-bits worth of cryptocurrency wallet addresses.

Then a couple of 256-bit decryption keys for the coded messages and the rest of the card can be used for a list of randomly generated initialization vectors that will be used for further encrypted messages.

So the website can contain an arbitrarily large amount of information which can then be decrypted using the data on the card.

Also, additional information can be added later by creating a spend transaction to one of the cryptocurrency addresses listed on the card, and publishing the information in the public blockchain, but on the public blockchain the text can be encrypted with the key and one of the initialization vectors on the card can be used. More random initialization vectors and additional addresses and crypto keys required to be provided inside each Nth encrypted message uploaded to the blockchain.