"I came here with a simple dream. A dream of killing all humans." B.B. Rodriguez
If it's a small office, you can use Ethernet over power lines. I have not used it before, but it seems to be what you are looking for.
That being said, it's difficult to give up the 1000 Mb connections from modern ethernet cables, along with POE for phones, etc. The designer by not putting ethernet cables in place did your business a disservice. A secure business requires secure ethernet.
It's called John's Phone. They seem to be a bit on the out of business side however. Still, it was a good idea. It's just a cell phone. Nothing else. No address book, no texting, no surfing. Just a phone. With 2 week battery time.
I'll stick with gold. Thanks.
That's funny. Pheasants also freak out at my 16 gauge.
I would eat some mummy meat. I bet it might be tasty.
Heh. In more practical terms, it would be cool to figure out what went into making this meat. We could eat ancient Egyptian meat, much in the same way that we enjoy Midas Touch from Dogfish Head Craft Brewed Ales.
I wish I had mod points. The only thing I would add to this is:
1. The cost of keeping people in prison and the rise of the prison-industrial complex. People make millions off of other Americans' misery.
2. The absolute disgrace of sentencing CHILDREN to adult prison. No attempt at rehabilitation. No effort made to protect their freedoms - which is unconscionable, as we remove their rights to pursue their particular happiness.
The prison system in the United States should make each and every one of us physically ill.
Some knucklehead did not turn off the autoplay for CDs and USBs. It's as simple as that.
I did not say it was OK. I said they can. It is not unconstitutional for them to do this. Your indignation is amusing though. I agree with you. It's a stupid move, particularly the getting caught part.
A capture rate of 100% is unreasonable. By definition, every document is grabbed and analyzed. It is unreasonable because there is no reason for the seizure of the documents. There must be a reason for the necessary warrant in order to capture of the documents.
The government's behavior in that manner is completely contrary to the protections laid out in the 4th Amendment. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong, full stop. As there is no war declared, there can no national security argument to be made to override the Constitution. Until we repeal the 4th, a capture rate of 100% is unconstitutional because there is no specific warrant process. The judiciary may not exempt themselves form the warrant process, nor may the Congress pass a law declaring warrants unnecessary - the Constitution overrides both these actions (or inactions).
Thank you for calling me out about the moron part. But respectfully, I disagree with you. I will not be kind, nor civil to someone who disagrees with me on this point of Constitutional interpretation. Anyone who trades freedom for security (in peacetime) is wrong - morally, ethically, and practically. As there is no declaration of war, these Government actions are illegal and the support of these actions traitorous. The people who enacted these warrantless programs should be tried, found guilty, and then places in jail / banished / put to death / pardoned (pardoning would be best, much as Ford pardoned Nixon).
I'm not sure this is a troll. Disagreeing with a moron is not a reason to mod someone down.
That being said, the NSA can spy as much as they want on foreign countries. However, the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The emails and faxes definitively qualify as papers and effects. The 100% capture of these constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. The NSA has prima facie been violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Their actions are unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.
No man can be a traitor for upholding or protecting the Constitution, which is what Snowden did.
Probably the same thing the British did when the Russians sent an assassin into London in 2006. Which is to say, nothing at all.
Good. It's nice that they're having a good time. And I'm pleased to meet their friends on Slashdot!
He makes America look like a foolish and ineffectual power mad state. Part of the Great Game is marketing, after all.
He was a craptastic Khan. Khan is supposed to be menacing and be able to sell Chryslers. Cumberbatch can barely sell Fords and is about as menacing as a hummus and wheat sandwich.