I don't think of myself as right or left wing.
I'm for as little government regulation and oversight as is necessary to protect citizens from the profit motivated capitalistic forces.
"Net neutrality" is the term that should mean just that in the telecom space, so I'm for the principle.
It's also one of those terms that many different parties want to claim has different meanings, so I'm not always for specific implementations of the policy.
If these things are in fact problems, we as a world need to deal with them. The US simply cannot afford to bankrupt itself in never-ending war.
DRM is not traditional encryption.
In most cases you use encryption to hide something from someone.
In DRM, you want them to see it, but not copy it. In general, DRM is impossible, you can't let someone have access to something and not have access to it at the same time.
However, most DRM schemes last a while until people can route around it.
I hit send too early
I interpret this summary (and a scan of the full text II.A on pages 14-29) to mean the emails were deemed admissible. However, I read packet traces and HTTP transactions for a living, not legal documents, so it is entirely likely I am mistaken.
Is there something I am missing?
From the court's opinion linked to from the article:
https://www.eff.org/files/warshak_opinion_121410.pdf
(1) Warshak enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails vis-a-vis
NuVox, his Internet Service Provider. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Thus, government agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by compelling NuVox
to turn over the emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
However, because the agents relied in good faith on provisions of the Stored
Communications Act, the exclusionary rule does not apply in this instance. See Illinois
v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987)
You're not stealing the knowledge, as you are not depriving them of it.
What you might be doing is depriving them of the benefits of having a monopoly of that data collection. What you are not depriving them of is the data collection itself.
Copying without permission is not theft of the item being copied. That doesn't mean it's automatically morally or legally ok, just that it differs from theft in substantial ways.
From the reviews so far it sounds like they made an awesome music video for Daft Punk. The takeaway seems to be go see it at the imax, turn off your brain, and enjoy the music and light show.
I'm down with that...
Not a lawyer, I don't even play one one TV.
Yes, this means that evidence obtained in this manner in the future would be inadmissible in court. According to the brief, they decided in this case since the law had not yet been deemed unconstitutional and the officers acted in good faith, the evidence was still admissible for this particular case.
Whether or not you can sue your ISP is a civil matter, pertaining to contract law, and this ruling should not apply.
Did anyone ever try to buy things from Sun?
No other company I ever worked with made it so hard. Unless you were a megacustomer, it was actually fairly difficult to actually buy anything from them.
In contrast, buying RedHat on the small scale is click, click, done.
Here's a summary of Ellison's rant on why Sun died, notice the complaints are mostly about sales and engineering decisions, open source had very little to do with it:
Be the default. 95+ percent of internet browsers use the browser in its default state.
Defaults matter.
It's possible to note be morally opposed to the actions of wikileaks,and still think Assange is overhyped. Bradly Manning is the real (hero/villain, choose one) in this situation, wikileaks is not really responsible for much in this situation.
It used to be a problem. Firefox has a short support window for older versions of Firefox, and Ubuntu developers have had to try to backport fixes to older versions of Firefox rather then do a major version upgrade. They have recently stopped this policy and are upgrading all older distros to the most recent firefox.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel
There's plenty of controversy about the new full body scanners that the TSA is installing at airports, and plenty more about the way some TSA agents are handling those that choose to opt out.
The heart of the matter comes from the fact that the TSA often doesn't understand that it is in show business, not security business. A rational look at the threats facing travelers would indicate that intense scrutiny of a four ounce jar of mouthwash or aggressive frisking of a child is a misplaced use of resources. If the goal is to find dangerous items in cargo or track down Stinger missiles, this isn't going to help.
Instead, the mission appears to be twofold:
1. Reassure the public that the government is really trying and
2. Keep random bad actors off guard by frequently raising the bar on getting caught
The challenge with #1 is that if people believe they're going to get groped, or get cancer, or have to wait in line even longer on Thanksgiving, they cease to be on your side. Particularly once they realize how irrational it is to try to stop a threat after it's already been perpetrated. (Imagine the havoc if someone had a brassiere-based weapon...)
And the challenge of #2 is that the cost of raising the bar gets higher and higher.
Smart marketers know how to pivot. I think it's time to do that. Start marketing the idea that flying is safe, like driving, but it's not perfect, like driving. If someone is crazy enough to hurt themselves or spend their life in jail, we're not going to stop them, and even if we did, they'd just cause havoc somewhere else. So instead of spending billions of dollars a year in time and money pretending, let's just get back to work.
The current model doesn't scale.
This is very much like what Schneier has been saying for years, but nobody else really cared till things got sexual. Isn't that like our species
Schneier, from 2005:
Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else -- Secure Flight and Trusted Traveler included -- is security theater. We would all be a lot safer if, instead, we implemented enhanced baggage security -- both ensuring that a passenger's bags don't fly unless he does, and explosives screening for all baggage -- as well as background checks and increased screening for airport employees.
Then we could take all the money we save and apply it to intelligence, investigation and emergency response. These are security measures that pay dividends regardless of what the terrorists are planning next, whether it's the movie plot threat of the moment, or something entirely different.
For under $200 you can have awesome sound.
My choice for a value setup is Grado SR80i headphones and a NuForce uDAC2 combo USB DAC and headphone amp. The "L-cush" pads are a recomended upgrade, or you can try the "sock mod"
Yes, you can get better sound from a system that sells for the price of a car but ~$200 gets you sound that is probably better then you've ever heard, and exceeds the quality of the source material most people listen to.
I use my grados with an external powered subwoofer when I want to shake the house, but usually they're fine by themselves..
Forget that.. A box of chemicals and cardboard tubes, let them make their own fire crackers...
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
