My preference is for public execution by gun to the back of the head, to be completed exactly three months after conviction. Paying for lengthy appeals and decades of sitting on death row costing the tax payers money is not effective. It should be swift and without apology or undue spectacle. Either, do it and do it quickly out in the open, or abolish it completely and stop wasting resources.

A Pony is a tiny horse, but a Clony is a tiny horse and an abomination. The four horsemen of the apocalypse may yet arrive on four genetically identical steeds.

I understand this article to mean that we have simply given up on having any agreed upon proper English. I'll admit I'm a pretty sloppy writer, but I'd rather that the true academics guide the course of what is considered proper English, than allow language to be whatever general society decides. Rather than saying there isn't one definition of proper English we can simply acknowledge there are regional differences and varying tolerances for lack of strict usage and percentage of slang. In common speech we may accept that with is considered normal, but when the occasion arises that more formal language is expected, the need for proper English becomes evident.

The password could still be saved in the client and 2FA added as an additional layer. I personally won't be using Yahoo! mail for mobile much longer as their new versions require extensive additional permissions. Currently the app has no objectionable permissions, but the new version wants much more, namely: Device & App History, Identity, Contacts, Location, SMS, Wi-Fi connection info, Device ID and Call info. My current app functions as needed, WTF would I enable all that additional access? I pay for premium services on Yahoo mail, I expect better.

How are the ISPs responding currently? Is there any current international cooperation for shutting down offenders based on good faith evidence?

I would tend to agree the ISP responsible for allowing a user to transmit traffic on the internet has the ethical obligation to squash malicious criminal action that is harming other internet users. I'd also like them to be the first line, but I think the government or better yet an independent international team should have abilities that would go beyond those of the ISP as just shutting down access isn't always going to be the first best path toward analysis and prosecution of the attack coordinator.

...and the villagers rejoice.

Yes, I've been to California lately and those of us like myself that support efforts to stop the constant waterfall of idiotic, burdensome, ineffective gun laws have our hands full trying to keep gun phobic citizens and legislators in check. Having police going on television stating that they estimate there are 500K unserialized AR type guns in California alone and that some of them are showing up at high profile crime scenes is not helping the cause. Any action that creates more public fear related to firearms is counter-productive to maintaining our rights. I'm not citing that 500K number, because I don't believe it's true, but that is what the nightly news is allowing the public to hear. I do understand that Cody Wilson is not responsible for a high number of recently produced weapons; he hasn't been able to offer that many milling machines. It's more independent machine shops that are cranking out volume. I just have to pick on Cody, because he's been the vocal public face trying to legitimize homemade guns as a movement. It's perfectly legal to make a firearm for yourself in the manner Cody's machine is intended, but none the less, the idea of "Ghostguns" is all it takes to get the "Think of the Children" banners flying. If I had my way we'd have shall issue CCW in every state with national right to carry, open carry, stand your ground and castle doctrine in every state in the land. As it stands though our legislators and a good many of the citizens they serve are clueless and fearful of guns and the best I know how to do is play defense in the states that suffer with such ignorance.

While I would much like legislators to understand that no matter what laws they make that guns will always be available, I feel this approach is doomed to fail. Guns are old technology, so as long as humans have the means to combine propellant with a projectile and an ignition source in a tube of sufficient strength, guns will be available in society. That said, please stop making homemade unserialized weapons. All that is going to result from that is that they will make new laws and those laws may be written so poorly as to put controls not only on serialized parts considered to be the "firearm", but on many common components. The spread of unserialized weapons may also cause more states to require gun registration. Cody, your actions will have harmful unintended consequences for gun owners. I'm sure you mean well, but it is a flawed strategy.

Maybe this robot laundry problem is why people in the future are always wearing the same silver jumpsuit.

Science makes Jesus sad.

IT jobs are one area where there is demand for workers, it's so helpful that the government would like to fix that. Companies lacking for workers to hire is what keeps upward pressure on wages. If the jobs are there and pay well, then the workers will follow because there is incentive to develop the marketable skills. If the government keeps trying to fix this situation they are going to seriously fuck it up for everyone. It's good that they have a large number of openings to fill because they need to cut down on the hyper judgmental selection process in HR. If business hadn't shut out so many workers they pitched in the garbage pile in the dot-com bust and had more proactively trained and internally promoted people to manage the labor supply they would be in better shape today.

If government officials are using personal mail on public mail servers from the network at the State Dept they also have some serious security issues. Most corporate security policies prohibit that behavior for good reason, even if they don't enforce it. It generally bypasses your email antivirus protection.

It's still quite a bit different from fingerprints. You can be smart and wipe down the soda can the cops gave you during an interview rather than throwing it away and allowing them to collect it. Good luck getting your DNA off of it. It's much harder to control where you leave sweat or a stray hair if you spend 24 hours in holding. Can they just pull it off the clothes they took off you when they processed you in, despite the fact you had no choice about turning them over? Either we have the right to refuse and force them to obtain a warrant or we don't. This ability to side step demonstrating probable cause is completely toxic to the legal system. I'm truly disappointed the supreme court didn't hear the case. Pulling sweat off a chair after a suspect refuses DNA collection is a pretty good definition of overstepping their ability to compel DNA collection without a warrant. I guess if the cops want to talk to me I'll have to show up in a bunny suit like I'm going into a clean room and not drink from any container. Better make sure you don't get beat up in holding, they might just collect your blood off the floor. This is going to lead to too many cases where someone gets charged or convicted who was, at some point present at the crime scene or associated with the victim, but did not have any part in the crime.

I was wrong about the IR filters on digital cameras, as another poster mentioned, a remote control IR emitter shows up bright as day on my camera. I'm confused by the result as I understand digital cameras do filter IR so the sky doesn't look purple, etc.. but oddly the IR emitted from an IR LED shows up as bright as any visible light source. Between reflectivity to thwart flash photo's and IR emitters I'd have to say this gadget technically may be quite effective.

Dress a little nerdy, put on some out of fashion glasses and lose Superman's confidence and bingo he's socially invisible. Being mild mannered, as Clark Kent makes him as attention grabbing as a potted plant. Anyone thinking that bright lights that obscure your image on camera will lower your surveillance profile could take a lesson from Clark Kent. Infrared lights might have some value to someone actually committing a crime, but that just makes them that much more attention worthy for a daily wearer wishing to side-step ubiquitous surveillance. Digital cameras and camcorders generally have IR filters in place so that their recordings look more like the colors perceived by the human eye, so I'm not sure if this technology would do much to keep a protestor's face off the nightly news.