Honestly, I used to love Spamhaus, but as the years wore on, I got into the IT world, and I had to interact with them I've come to really loathe them. A decent service, I guess, but every single person that is involved with them comes across like a whining child, and I hate ever having to interact with them.
Now go and take this out into New York City on 5th avenue at 5pm ET rush hour during the work week.
No, seriously, I want to see how well this car performs in a city where the posted 40mph speed limit oin the Staten Island Expressway is ignored by the vast majority of cops and motorists, the normal speed is about 70mph or so, and people will rear end you out of spite if you go too slow for them.
Then get me the data on how much less it costs to run this car.
The basic problem with this article - and the authors previous articles - is that they assume that law enforcement, judges, and government are morally just entities who will always attempt to enforce laws based on their spirit and not their own personal ambitions.
The reason the fifth amendment exists is not to protect criminals from prosecution - as you ignorantly assume in your first article - but to protect innocent people from prosecution from crimes they didn't commit, a protection that lingers from the days of King George. An individual would be forced to admit their guilt one way or another. If they said they were innocent, and lawyers later proved them incorrect, they would be charged with two crimes. Claim guilt and you get no trial.
This system allowed two charges to be claimed against the perpetrator, who was potentially innocent of the crime but because of policing techniques and lawyers arguments could be found guilty
The ability to choose not to speak up for yourself means police are forced to perform their duties as efficiently and honestly (although that's not always the case) as possible. It's also a good opportunity for your lawyer to talk strategy with you and see what the potential outcomes are of an investigation and trial.
Really, all this proves is that samzenpus is a naive little child living in a much larger world where he believes the big government is a protective father, and not an entity of politicians, judges, and LEOs. It's a bad trait of smart people who should know better than this.
Yeah, that was probably your problem. Also, keep a check on any torrents you have running - running those at full tilt can consume an ass-load of bandwidth too.
Tor basically asks "how much bandwidth can I use" and then uses it. I have to keep an eye on it because I run a live stream at HD resolutions, and being conscious of my bandwidth usage is priority #1.
I run a non-exit Tor node, and have not received any letter like this, on FiOS. Although, I DO limit my bandwidth consumption via Tor.
oh god, reading all of the comments
Yes, the website a29. is amazing, isn't it? 29 a's, all lined up in a row. My, how far technology has come!
Title should read: "Elliott Kember's Insane Password Security Strategy"
Seriously, why are you storing passwords, at all? Unless you're storing them on in an encrypted space of some kind that requires two-factor authentication you shouldn't be storing passwords at all (and even then I really question your sanity).
You mean the lack of customers is a hindrance to business? You mean to tell me that businesses don't exist to make the world a better place by trying to force a product into a niche that isn't exactly there yet?
Huh. I could have sworn this was going to work. I mean, there's absolutely no profit in fossil fuels, right?
It's not about being "old fashioned" either. It's about what works. Electric doesn't work for the vast majority of the world - yet. The business there right now is either niche ultra-high-end, or utility - both of which require a large up-front investment that you're only going to find in certain places. There's a growing niche for big-city transport, but that requires investments that many municipalities aren't willing to make just yet.
There are also a lot of problems that electric doesn't solve, like the big-haul transportation industry. Sure, you could offload that work to a national rail network, but then you run into the problem of overloaded rail traffic. In America, that's a bigger problem than you would actually imagine. (eg: it's becomming
Electric cars might be coming for the masses, but these guys were way ahead of the curve. A successful business launches right before the peak of the curve - and we're nowhere near there yet for electric cars.
So then, I'm not surprised. Sad that it didn't work out for them, but, really, did you expect anything else?
If it makes you feel uncomfortable, force people to stop talking about it. The definition of political correctness!
I wonder if there was a software glitch telling him the car was fully charged while it wasn't.
As for driving through Manhattan - yeah I know, it eats up fuel; but, it's within the supposed range. In the writers defense, nobody told him that city driving would be worse for the car. Hell, the popular assumption with regenerative braking is that it's actually better because you'll regenerate more power as you brake.
The NYT article seems pretty fair, from a consumers standpoint. Admittedly, driving through Manhattan - as a life-long New Yorker - gives me fucking nightmares, but who's to say some guy driving to Boston from South Carolina, wouldn't like to make a brief drive through Manhattan. After all, it's within the range guidelines.
I think Dr. Who had a stroke.
I'm confused. So basically what you're telling me is that you want the ability to overthrow the government, but still benefit from its laws and regulations?
I'm so confused
Just out of curiosity, but if you really feel that these types of laws hinder the second amendment and are of a tyrannical nature, and you intend to take arms and form an organized militia to fight or overthrow the current government, then why oh why do you care about its laws in the first place?
Learn to fucking read then, you half-wit.
The paper in question cites the ability to make carrying out work easier for us as innovation, and doesn't cite "computers" as not being innovative. They cite bullshit like Twitter and Facebook as failures of the use of the word "innovation."