It's not the check for intoxication that concerns anyone, it's the checkpoints. Around here, the police need suspicion of a crime in order search a person. Nobody has a problem with stopping and testing people who appear to be driving drunk (except the drunk, I suppose).
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Wow, I just looked into that some more and it's pretty horrifying. The ruling was more than it being "Just Too Important(TM)", it was that it is too important to the State. That line of reasoning allows for just about any unconstitutional law to be upheld. Even the dissenting decisions were more concerned with the effectiveness of the checkpoints and considered the violation of the Fourth Amendment that they represent an accepted and foregone conclusion.
The majority opinion from Rehnquist: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
It's a trap.
When Europe gets the blame for ATTEMPTING A LANDING, ALL THE REST OF THESE WORLDS ARE BELONG TO US ! ! !
Either that, or there's a loophole where it's ok for Europe to land on Europa.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid.
That's what I do. The extra hardware is really just a switched battery charger, but you could get better efficiency switching the entire AC output to grid instead of running everything through the battery and inverter.
The panels run the house during the day and charge the batteries for night, but during extended cloudy weather or snow everything will run off the grid without any action on my part.
Well, they have to find out that it actually happened to do that. There appears to be a good deal of "information laundering" going on so that individual agents may not even know that they're facilitating perjury. It's a deliberately constructed end run around our system of justice, which makes it even more nefarious than a few rogue agents.
Why does Apple get to decide what certs are trusted or untrusted? They should send out a security notice advising customers about the situation and then let individuals deal with it from there. Also, all certs should be shipped as "untrusted" so that the user can selectively enable what he wants to be trusted.
Have you looked at the root CA list in any of the major browsers/OSs? Why are we required to implicitly trust every single one of these entities to sign anything they want? If those lists illustrate how broken the CA system is, I don't know what will.
DNSSEC doesn't tie you to a registrar any more than registering a domain already did. DNSSEC also solves a good chunk of the MITM that can occur with the normal CA system. DNS is a vital part of the internet. The fact that it is so easily spoofed and altered is the root of many security problems.
The argument against DNSSEC is that there is still a root authority, at IANA, that can be corrupted. Which is solvable with DLV (DNSSEC Look-aside Validation) and alternative trust anchors. Even without that, stating the CA (or specific key) you use in DNS only makes the system stronger. At the very least, that's one more party to corrupt and non-targeted attacks would be broadcast across the internet.
Benzene doesn't hurt its use a fuel, and the total exposure is very very low when used as an antiseptic. The assayed benzene concentration in commercially available 200 proof ethanol is less than or equal to 1 ppm (basically the limit of detection of the test, so 1 ppm at worst). You'd be a fool to drink it all of the time, but drinking a few cL while hiking wouldn't be likely to hurt you, besides tasting like shit.
That person was recently fired
Let's at least hope that the manager responsible for having him sacked was also, in light of these events, sacked.
Every smoke detector has a 9V battery.
Until the first time it goes off while you're cooking.
Anyway, smoke detectors are storage space for dead 9V batteries.
They're easily found next to the charcoal and lighter fluid in every grocery store. How else do you light your 50000BTU_barbecue?
DANE depends on DNSSEC, so the response is authenticated.
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but this is a problem than can be easily solved with DANE (or certificate pinning or CT...). If you make a positive assertion about the legitimacy of your self-signed certificate in DNS, you can have the authentication of a CA-signed certificate without the associated expense.
With DANE, you (the domain owner) are acting as the authority who vouches for your certificate instead of (or in addition to) one of the many CAs.
(I know that this is supposed to be an opportunistic approach, but reliance on the CAs is what is making proper HTTPS, even if just for forms, underutilized.)
Well, if you're a betting sort of person... anyone who has an arch-nemesis, or arch-nemeses, is probably not a good sort of person. (And obviously that applies to that person's arch-nemesis, too.)