The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users, and she is keen to replicate it using a greater proportion of Kindle regulars. But she warned against assuming that the "digital natives" of today would perform better.
The difference is, you can't do much to force them to pay up, while they can cut off your internet access (and your livelihood) to get *you* to pay up.
Once you have a judgement against them you can turn the process over to a collection agency for a portion of the proceeds. Use the court to file a lien against their assets, equipment, etc. There's all kinds of fun you can have with this if you wish.
Pay $20 versus hiring a lawyer and attempting to sue a wrongful accusation.
Or hold the ISP responsible for being complicit it this extortion scheme and take a chain saw to their fiber bundle.
Are you sure you didn't sign it over to dice when you posted here? No, I am not willing to go wade through the Slashdot TOS to check right now.
No need. Just read the bottom of the page.
Comments owned by the poster.
No. Nobody can explain that because that is not the purpose of the tool....They can access a lot more content using this tool, not the same content more securely.
Incorrect. It does improves security by building a web of trust that makes infiltration by an opponent more difficult. It also improves security by compartmentalizing connection and peer information so that if a opponent does infiltrate the system, the amount of information that they can obtain about other participants is drastically reduced compared to other systems..
"In order for a censor to discover the IP addresses of your computer, they'd have to somehow convince you that they're a friend." Fisk explained. "It uses these real-world trust relationships to protect the IP addresses of these proxies because when you run Lantern in the uncensored world, you are a proxy.
Through a process called consistent routing, the amount of information any single Lantern user can learn about other users is limited to a small subset, making infiltration significantly more difficult.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the
It is relevant to today's
Having said that, it is also meaningful to you because you likely pay, via several different avenues such as taxes and cable fees, money to support the NFL.
Either you want to be surrounded by other drunk and obnoxious people, or you don't.
Also the horses become much more pleasant to be around when they are breeding.
Funny, I'm the same way.
I don't think that's the intended use at all.
I'm guessing they're expecting texts more like "someone broke into my house, and I'm hiding in the closet", or "my husband is abusing me, and thinks I'm just cleaning up in the bathroom, but I need help", etc. Situations where being discreet is important, situations where people currently try to text 911, and often get no response.
Agreed. I don't think it's intended to replace a 911 call, but to provide an alternative in situtations, such as you provided, when a 911 call might not be practical. Another example would be during a mass casualty event where 911 calls can't get through because the towers are saturated. SMS messages use essentially no bandwidth and would be able to get through, providing emergency services and first responders with additional information about injuries, people who are trapped, etc.
What carrier changes you for 911 phone calls? You don't even need a SIM card to make a 911 call.
All of them, but they don't charge the caller. They charge their subscribers. Subscribers are charged a number of vaguely described monthly "fees" like "Universal Service Fee". These fees are supposed to pay for mandated features like the ability to call 911. Another one of these "fees" pays for the the ability to port a number from one carrier to another. These mandated features only get imposed if the carriers get an approved way to bill customers for them somehow.
I know PGP is open source, but who knows enough about both encryption math and programming to actually verify that the code is safe, and why should anyone trust them?
I do and many others do as well. Hopefully at least some of these others are outside of the reach of the US.
Personally I'm not interested in anything that involves uploading my private keystore to a third party, encrypted or not, and without that you lose the main feature, portability, that comes with webmail.
By contrast, the 2014 Jeep Cherokee runs the "cyber physical" features and remote access functions on the same network, Valasek notes. "We can't say for sure we can hack the Jeep and not the Audi, but... the radio can always talk to the brakes," and in the Jeep Cherokee, those two are on the same network, he says.
This does tie in well with and extend their presentation last year where, given access to the car's network, they were able to manipulate its steering and braking systems. The trick will be to subvert one of the remotely accessible systems and then generate the necessary commands on the network in question using that subverted system. Maybe they are saving that presentation for 2015.