In a lot of places (Britain particularly) the postal service relies on the money paid by junk mailers. No junk mail, no funding for delivering real mail.
I have to say, I've never understood this argument. I would regard the loss of my freedom as being as bad as the loss of my life. Are you really going to tell me that the state can repay someone who spent 30 years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit?
They will have a hell of a better chance doing that if you aren't a corpse.
And what do you mean you don't understand it? If it's that horrible for you just go punch the ms13 leader if you can't bear it. Frankly I'm one of the people who would rather fight for thirty years than go with such a nihilistic attitude. Better off dead? Spare us the melodrama.
Would this not also require a redirect to a domain other then mail.google.com?
Nobody other then google should be able to generate a certificate for mail.google.com
SSL interceptors (such as the one made by Bluecoat) work by intercepting IP traffic bound for port 443. They pull a MITM attack on you by making a new SSL connection to the actual site, extracting the site's public key from the real cert, wrapping it in a forged cert that is signed by their CA cert. All the IT department has to do is install the interceptor's CA cert into each employee's browser (IE lets the domain admin do it remotely) so that the forged cert appears to be valid. So you either check for IT-installed CA certs in your browser (the Certificate Patrol add-on helps with Firefox), or run a script to fetch the cert from the site (using the openssl command-line util) and compare it to a known-good copy of the cert before you visit the site.
Obviously, the right link is this one.
Yea, except the general public can actually do something with PDFs, where as film negatives are really a pain in the ass to deal with for this purpose.
True, old idea, new implementation, but its definitely an improvement over the last one.
Dutch drivers are less than half as likely as their American counterparts to die in a road accident.
but fail to mention if they are counting urban and highway accidents separate. Thats kind of a big difference as you are much more likely to die in a accident at 70 than 25, yet Europe has a tiny fraction of the highways we have.
I can absolutely see some idiot city planner designing a new residential zone following these rules, only to have home shoppers refuse to buy anything in the area because the roads suck. People won't want to live with this crap.
Further, they are happy over a reduction of 2.3mph? That's less than the margin of error on your speedometer! Hit someone at 22.7mph and you will do just as much damage as at 25mph, and with less visibility and tighter proximity, collisions are going to be more likely.
If these sensitivities were real (though I very much doubt that they are), he would have a point. Just because something has become socially common doesn't mean it's ok to do if it later turns out that it harms others in their own home.
Er, no offense, but no he wouldn't. He'd have a sensitivity that it would be incumbent upon him to solve. Otherwise what's to stop him from moving into an apartment in the center of a city and demanding that everyone in the building stop using electronics? He's welcome to retrofit his home to make it a Faraday cage if he wishes, but he has no right to restrict the law-abiding behavior of his neighbor in *her* home just because he's (supposedly) a genetic freak who can sense EMF radiation.
My local library charges a dollar for DVD rentals. The fee goes back into expanding/maintaining the collection.
I don't think they'd remove the other camera.
Oh, and editors: If I wanted idle speculation on the next Apple product, I'd go to MacRumors or any of a dozen other sites. Can we focus a bit more on stuff that... matters?
Hey! I had some good times between 2000 and 2008 so could you please only destroy time in New York during that period?
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
