Cams are as much to stop citizen abuse as they are to stop police abuse.
In fact, will be born out after a couple years of vest cam usage.
Also, you may want to rethink your position. When the gunny drives by and peppers your house with automatic weapons fire just because your un-redacted face and voice appeared in a police video you will (too late) realize that you have surrendered the streets to the thugs.
So says the professor.
The Judges don't always agree.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Exactly,
The conspiracy theorists have to dial it down a bit.
The redacting is for faces that must be protected by law, such as children, and witnesses.
Hardly make sense for the police to release photos of witnesses so that the thugs homeboys can put a hit on them.
The redaction is Like the redaction on street view, blurring of faces.
There are also places where the police have no right to film, such as in homes.
The other thing they fail to understand is that causality is patently obvious in the vast majority of cases where there are no confounding factors.
Probably the social sciences are most in need tests like this, as they are always trying to pin some outcome on some input in a bubbling cauldron of alternatives. But of course, the cauldron is full of confounding factors.
Some parts of this can be done even cheaper.
Don't hook up enough external bandwidth such that someone can copy 100 terabytes of data without anyone noticing. Even at gigibit Ethernet speed that takes an incredibly long time to copy that much data.
Sure, they have to move high-def movie clips, maybe even entire movies around between their various sites. But anyone stealing that much data would have to be INSIDE their network with a suitcase full of terabyte drives, or outside their network with a couple months to invest in the project.
Finally, some on who gets it,
Set your client up right and stop all this hand wringing. Its a tempest in a teapot.
Hey, if I write an email, I own the copyright, correct?
The encryption is a method I use to keep others from reading said copyrited work, correct?
This means that removing the encryption is in effect, circumventing a copywrite protection, and illegal under the DMCA.
No, you misunderstand what is going on here.
StartTLS is something that happens when your email client connects to the mail server with an insecure protocol on a non-ssl port, and then asks the server to switch to a secure connection. Its your clue that you are doing it wrong,
Connect on a secure port over ssl (usually 465) instead of 25. Set your client up right to use a secure port and they can't deny a secure connection. (Unless they don't support security at all, in which case run away from them like your hair is on fire).
WITHOUT doing it right, your email was never secure, never encrypted, so no DMCA violation.
They aren't denying you a secure connection, they are just putting the burden on you to do it properly instead of having their servers to the extra work of switching an insecure connection to a secure one, which usually entails a whole bunch of handshake-security dance.
Set your client up the right way on the right ports.
Well I assure you someone will have complete visibility into the cloud.
Money from government. We're here to help.
I like how smartass respondents like to gloss over confirmations in their own reference as if they didn't exist, and wouldn't be caught.
Phototoxicity often occurs upon repeated exposure of fluorescently labeled cells to illumination from lasers and high-intensity arc-discharge lamps. In their excited state, fluorescent molecules tend to react with molecular oxygen to produce free radicals that can damage subcellular components and compromise the entire cell. In addition, several reports have suggested that particular constituents of standard culture media, including the vitamin riboflavin and the amino acid tryptophan, may also contribute to adverse light-induced effects on cultured cells. Fluorescent proteins, due to the fact that their fluorophores are buried deep within a protective polypeptide envelope, are generally not phototoxic to cells. However, many of the synthetic fluorophores, such as the MitoTracker and nuclear stains (Hoechst, SYTO cyanine dyes, and DRAQ5), can be highly toxic to cells when illuminated for even relatively short periods of time. In designing experiments, fluorophores that exhibit the longest excitation wavelengths possible should be chosen in order to minimize damage to cells by short wavelength
It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and
constituents of standard culture media,
nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
Light itself is not toxic. Read reverseengineer's response http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
As best I can tell, even reading all the other replays, THIS reply is the only one that makes any sense at all.
Toxic light is a new one.
Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins.
The light might fry the specimen. But no rational definition of toxic applies here.
The whole story is a balloon, a trial balloon.
Let's promise broadband everywhere and see if the sheep will buy into (pay for) our surveillance platform.
Do you have a computer that can access Google?
Nobody transfers video to POTS, so it hardly matters that you are unaware of such.
TOX really didn't re-invent the wheel. They simply re-deployed the original concept of Skype, with public nodes located via Torrent-like technology and encryption keys that are in the hands of the client, and unknown to the nodes or anyone else. And they did it with open-source code.
As to why they did it, you would have only to review what Microsoft did to Skype and who they did it FOR to understand that Skype is totally backdoored, and unsafe to even have on your machine. There is no way microsoft will ever recoup the price they paid for Skype. Someone else footed the bill for them.
Who, besides you, cares about your mom's problems?
Who, besides you, set your mom up on Skype in the first place?
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
