No argument. I work in Phoenix.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what number, if any, the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had in mind. Change the rules in some fair, neutral eau of that dem the right way to do it, but arbitrary limits are stupid.

Clothing suitable for Gurgaon may not be suitable for Minneapolis. Especially in winter.

I, however, would love to be able to buy Allen Solly in the US.

Um, bad post. I meant that neither Local Motors nor anything associated with it are Luddite.

Now let me reboot this frikin N7. Stupid touch problems.

Local Motors and nothing associated with it are Luddite.

Your solution violates the Fourth Amendment at least.

I was responding to a proposal that cars be rejected outright, arbitrarily, and let the courts act as a filter to vet those, which would, to me, turn the court into a preliminary examiner. Such a waste, as the court should decide that that PTO ess negligent in merely refusing to accept applications dur to workload.

And that would be negligent, and is. The PTO should perhaps work on streamlining the work, maybe automating the intake and initial comparison of applications to both competing and existing patents, and even developing specialists to more quickly identifying problems and making decisions.

So the answer your propose is to arbitrarily limit demand. I would expect many rejected applicants to be on court with valid complaints that their application was never considered on its merits, as should be expected by law. You shift the work from the PTO to the courts. Stupid.

Though it is complicated by the government service issue, there are ways to measure performance...

- Salt the case load with fictitious, bogus applications intended to be declined. In fact, this can both detect work that is disingenuous, and start applying some quality checks. Applications that are so flawed as to be obvious can be expected to fall through as approved if examiners are just phoning it in.

- Break up the review process, no insight into the next step for any examiner. At some point, some examiners will be doing too little work to keep up, or the backlog will inspire some investigation. Perhaps.

- This is an oldie. Full tracking of the examiner's work, down to the keystroke.

- Even older, time to put up the performance chart. Peer pressure will probably not work in Civil Service, but it's a valiant try nonetheless.

Now, the real trick is how to measure performance. That scares me.

Same problem with 3d-printed firearms. It was fine and good to let you make your own into it even seems like or might be possible for just the technically adept minority of citizens. Now, not so much does the government think making your own gun is a good idea.

Restricting access to files describing functional designs is much like restricting access to books describing more traditional methods of gunsmithing.

It's not the DDOS. It's the login attempts, probes. You know all this. Relentless attacks. They even try to raise an SMTP or SNMP server. Stupid, but the scripts run forevet without attention, so this is the new normal.

Used to be you could put up a naked host and count the time to compromise on hours. Can one last a minute today?

Our VB6 software works a hell of a lot better than our .NET software. And the .NET developers had the VB6 source code to paw through and get some insight into how to do what they were asked to.

Yes, it is the developers. We paid them to learn .NET, and to make a replacement for the VB6 app. They failed to replace the app successfully, but they apparently did learn .NET so they are going to Cooperstown. Not so nice for us.

Goatpot.

It seems like the entire internet IS ALREADY ATTACKING MY ROUTERS.

What's one more lame scammer gonna do that isn't already being tried every 20ms or so?

Oh, and my external IP at home is dynamic, but the lease is tenacious. I would need to wait a while to get it to change. Like a week.

It's doubtful that offline mode could be enabled in firmware, certainly not without some serious work. But shimming the terminal 1. Intercepts the chip data stream, 2. Triggers an apparent non chip card insertion, 3. Captures the chip data and if the cracker is good, acts like a terminal and decodes data, 4. Sends stripe data as expected, 5. Terminal received the auth and is happy happy happy.

The shim stands in to intercept the chip data, fill the terminal intro accepting the card as a mag stripe, and doors leave the chip unsynched, which will either kill the chip or force a re sync and raise some innocuous alarms. Ask we care about if that it is possible to circumvent the chip.

IF the terminal permits swipe insertions. Many in EU will not, but if the cracker has modified the terminal firmware, all is lost. That is generally very difficult, checksums and signing and all that.