MashUp is a good one if you have XBMC too. XBMC running on RaspberryPi with MashUp app.

Jay-Z and Beyonce also recently traveled there earlier this year or so, and were parading in front of cameras and nothing happened to them. I think when you are rich and famous, rules in general, don't apply.

This case illustrates a couple things for sure:

1. It is important to have Encryption software (like TrueCrypt) available to people, as that is the only way in this day and age, that will actually allow ones papers and effects to be personal. This example shows how lawyers and judges will parse words to make up what ever they want, even when the constitution is clear. Case law has watered down so much of the constitution that it doesn't even resemble the original document anymore.

2. Before handing over the key, like this guy is being forced to do, it is important for the person to balance what the punishment will be if he DOES turn it over (and give them evidence to convict him), to what the punishment will be if he decides to NOT COMPLY with the order. In some cases, it may be better to turn it over, as the crime punishment won't be so bad, in other cases, it would be better to not release the key, even if they held you in jail for years. Depending on what evidence you had on the drive, and what crime your being prosecuted for.

3. This is another example of at least State law enforcement not being able to crack drive encryption software, which means "it does work" to a point. Granted, they aren't the NSA or military trying to get at these files, but there is encryption software available that provides enough protection to cause this case to come out and others like it. Which begs the question: what software did he use? I would bet money it was TrueCrypt that he was using, but even if not, other cases have involved TC, which could be another argument against what TC's website said when they went under (about it not being secure anymore).

This kind of thing is where having 2 different keys for an encrypted volume would be good, like a key for personal usage, and another key for usage when under duress.

The normal key would unencrypt the volume for you to use as normal, and the "duress" key would cause the volume to automatically do a secure data wipe of the volume file. So if you're being forced to hand over the key, whether by force (like torture), or under threat of jail time, you can meet the courts qualifications of surrendering your "passphrase", and when they use it, they destroy the volume that they were forcing you let them have access to.

There even may be arguments to make as to how well this would satisfy some requirements: first, your complying, so your not in contempt of court. Second, the key was a legit key that was for "use" with that particular encrypted volume, so you didn't lie. Third: You didn't destroy the evidence, as I'm sure you're not the one who types the key in when you turn it over... some computer forensic IT guy is the one who actually typed the passphrase that deleted the volume, so you didn't physically do it and can't be prosecuted for destruction of evidence.

If you took this a step further, you could even do this how they do in CIA movies with challenge/response pairs after you give a legitmate key for decryption. In other words, you give them your REAL key, but then before the volume can be decrypted with the key, a set of challenge/response words are given, that have to match, with each challenge word having a normal response and a duress response. If any of the challenges are answered with the duress response, then the volume "self destructs". This would possibly be safer to keep you out of trouble, as you would be handing over your actual decryption key phrase, you would just give them a duress response word for one of the challenges. This would be harder to implement, and wouldn't be any more useful than 2 keys for different purposes, except that it might help you from getting in more trouble in court cases like this by following the technicalities of a court ordered demand.

My car does not have a clock built in. It DID, but doesn't anymore. When I modded my car (WRX) I replaced the clock pod on the dash with a gauge pod that holds 3 engine gauges (Boost, EGT, and Oil Press). All of the guages are more important than the clock was, so now I have no clock. Not because the car is cheap, but because dash space was at a premium, and I opted to replace the clock with something I need more.

Hmm... what does it take to become official law enforcement?

The primary requirement is the ability and will to expend physical force to make you cooperate. All policing and judicial systems and prison systems work on this simple premise... they at one point have been granted enough power to build up their ranks and arsenals and manpower, and now have the threat of more force than you do in order to make you comply with what ever laws they want to enforce.

This is the ONLY thing it takes to become law enforcement on your own. Once a group a people have enough of a force to equal a legitimate police force, they are then not under the authority of that legitimate police force anymore... For example the cartels in Mexico have built up enough people, money and weapons, and have exerted enough force of their own on the people and other police/military personel, that they are now they're own entity and don't answer to anyone but themselves. This is because the legitimate police forces do not have any more threat of force against them than the cartels do to the police.

to illustrate this principle, suppose a lone person meets a lone LEO and wishes to not comply with the LEO's demands. Since it's a 1-on-1 stalemate, the police officer will usually resort to a weapon of some kind. Now suppose the lone civilian also has a similar weapon and is as inclined to use it to get his way as the LEO is. The next step is build-up of manpower to overcome the civilian, the LEO calls for backup, so that his numbers out number the single person to force compliance. Suppose the civilian does the same, and calls in his armed buddy's to equally match the police backup. The police will just call in more people. It's a stalemate until one side builds up more people (ie force) than the other side, this is usually the LEO's as they have an entire police force to call upon and other agencies if needed as well. If a show of force by manpower cannot be made by the LEO's that's greater than the opposing side, then they usually call in other forms of force as required, such as "air superiority" (helicopters), and ground superiority (SWAT tanks/and armored vehicles, and snipers with vantage points). At some point, usually the LEO's will have enough show of force that they have the upper hand against an uncooperative person or group.

Some cases where LEO's had a hard time obtaining the upper hand are shown in recent history, such as Waco, TX stand-off, and more recently the Bundy Ranch, where enough armed people showed up in defense of the person that LEO retreated. This is because they either didn't have the man-power to show dominant force anymore, or they didn't have the will/desire to go "all out" in that show of force by having an all out gun-fight.

Owning one should not be illegal. If the FCC wants to regulate usage, that's fine, unless you actually USE it, it's not transmitting anything, and thus shouldn't be banned.

The same principle goes for amateur Radio equipment (HAM). I own several handheld transceivers, capable of transmitting in VHF/UHF even though I don't have a my HAM license yet (plan on it here one day when I have some free time). The equipment is not illegal for me to purchase or own just because I don't have a valid license. Only transmitting becomes illegal without a license. For instance, I can fire up my VHF/UHF and tune in an receive signals and listen to other 'Elmers' rag-chew all day long without a license. It isn't until the moment I "Press that PTT button" and 'key up' that it becomes illegal without a license.

The FCC has powers to regulate EMF and radio transmissions and by extension, regulate people and electronics that ARE transmitting radio freqs...however, they don't have authority over the actual electronics (or people) that have not transmitted anything over radio freqs.

+1 for military time! 00:00 is midnight, and 12:00 is high noon. None of the ambiguity of 12am/pm.

Agreed, and what I voted as well. While a lot of newer hardware and OS's support it, and have the IPv6 stack ready, I think a major hurdle is going to be all the existing applications, whether older commercial apps and custom business apps, everywhere very rarely support IPv6. If DNS is used, then maybe no change there is needed, but any app that needs to point to a server or another PC on the network usually has an option for hardcoded IP's, and none of these apps have I ever seen use IPv6, and all have the normal IPv4 address space.

The other major hurdle is going to be some of the lesser hardware gear that no-one really thinks about, this includes existing building monitoring/automation system, safety/fire systems, entry/security systems, and anything else that runs on embedded hardware and PLC systems. Many of these types of systems sit on the network, and most are IPv4 only. These types of systems are rarely (if ever) upgraded and are deployed and last in field for very long periods of time...sometimes the life of a building, or at least decades.

Because of these drawbacks, I think at the very closest we will see a hybrid net (which would be close to a new internet), where most or all LAN's remain IPv4 internally, and get NAT'd like they currently public IPv6 addresses. So similar to our topology now, where say everything in my house stays IPv4 within my house LAN, but my Router's public WAN address is IPv6 to my ISP. This would give ISP's and businesses more IP's to mess with, but not require hardware and software within a LAN environment to worry about IPv6. Somehow I doubt that we'd even see this scenario any time real soon.

I should have clarified, that the example I used was Googled off the internet, and I don't personally text with teenagers, with the exception of my daughter, but she doesn't write crap like that as bad. Don't want people to jump to any wrong conclusions from my previous post...

But perhaps you believe the teenagers with whom you converse lack intelligence?

You apparently haven't tried texting with a teenager before... Many of their texts are random gibberish unless you know their lingo and acronyms. A cat could probably come pretty close.

An example might be "CTN POS. TDTM L8R K?"
How is that much different than a cat walking across the keyboard?

Yeah, and to add to that, as anecdotal from my own survey of everyone that I see running a mac, about 80% or more of them in the business realm, are also running Windows on their Mac... either in the form of boot camp (dual boot), or parallels/VMWare virtual machines to get a lot of work done on them that they can't do on OSX for various reasons, mostly because they need to run software that is windows based.

I'm a member of the AFSCME and quite honestly, it's not anywhere near as cushy as you seem to believe.

So in your opinion, retiring at age 55, with >95% of your yearly salary (for life), plus medical/dental benefits isn't cushy? I sure wish I could get a retirement pension like that, work in the private sector a while, and you'll find out you get jack squat except maybe some 401K matching (if you're lucky). Most retired LEO's in the area I live in retire making in the range of $100-150K /yr. FOREVER. That's also not including the SSI they'll draw when they're old enough on top of that.

Not only that, but because of the low retirement age, many of them get another job after retiring, sometimes with city/county courthouses, prisons, or private security firms, which means if they do this, they often will be making >$200K+ per year (combined) for a few extra years until they hit "real retirement age".

I'm not sure what you do, but are you sure you're not selling yourself your benefits package a little short? Maybe LEO's get a better deal than other public employee's, but that is what the original post was referring too.

That decision is still being held up in a messy court battle. The decision was made by the 9th circuit, but the state's attorney general (who didn't want anything to do with the case originally), stepped in and asked for it to get reviewed "en banc". The 9th circuit put a "hold" on the decision (meaning the county sheriffs can still deny everyone until this is settled), until a decision is made whether to review the decision again.

Basically, the "elite" didn't like the decision handed down, they threw a big fit, and asked the court to "re-think" their original decision, and by throwing a big enough temper tantrum, the courts put a hold on their original decision and have since dragged their feet in determining what to do next. The original decision was handed down in Feb, of this year, and here it is June, and it's still not in effect.

At this point, most sheriffs will still deny the CCW applications, due to the hold put on the decision until further notice. So your statement is not yet correct, as it's been over 4 months since the original decision and most people still can't get a permit, and the sheriffs are denying them like business as usual.

Except the SIM card won't work in the ATT locked phone. All the phones ATT sells, are locked, and you need to get the unlock code from them in order to use a different SIM. They don't like to give out the unlock code until your phone is off contract. You might be able to get them to give it to you if you called ahead and told them you were going out of the country and needed to use a local SIM in that country, but I'm not sure what their policy is.

FWIW, I was going out of the country with a phone that the contract was over with, and called, and they gave me the code, but I don't think it would have been that easy if I was still under contract.