To me, I unthinkingly assumed it affected how the body armor lay against the body, therefore the side was slightly more open. Now I am not so sure.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I see the "close access work" as a bit of a red herring, and the "ethically worse position" is the real story. Mass surveillance is just too nice to give up. So, I predict that we will be seeing government malware that infects large numbers of computers in order to attempt to maintain the status quo.
So, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong, or just saying that because it doesn't agree with you, that you want to dismiss it?
I'm saying that it's a controversial subject, and as such, anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt.
I was not stating my opinion, because I hadn't seen enough of both sides to develop one yet. One side seems normal mixed with a few crazies, and the other seems all crazy. I was looking for the normals on the other side in order to see what their argument was, but have yet to find them. From what I've read here, I think I'm finally starting to understand that they are, in fact, all crazy, and that they have no real disagreement other than that they find the very existence of the first group repugnant for no readily apparent reason, and that they're projecting their thoughts onto the first group.
I apologize for attempting to define "SJW". I thought you legitimately didn't know how the term was being used, and like I said, I now understand your side of this disagreement.
FYI, Wikipedia generally isn't the best reference for controversial subjects.
I see the term SJW being used as a pejorative against a group which includes some but not all feminists. In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.
It would need to be a full on classification system, similar to how Netflix does ratings. That is, it would have to put both the reviewer and the review reader into groups, and weigh the rating based on the reviewer's similarity to the reader.
"People with similar ratings to yours gave this restaurant 2 stars, while the general public gave it 4 stars."
The problem with this is that you would need a whole lot more ratings in order to get any kind of reliability.
Also, due to the new ICANN email verification requirement, there is going to be an increase in the number of "parked" domains.
First 6 are non-secret, last 4 are non-secret. And one additional digit is a checksum, therefore non-secret. So, a credit card has 5 digits of secrecy.
I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I don't find Netflix DRM unpalatable is because I didn't purchase the content. The "rental" is very explicit in the agreement between the Netflix and the consumer. If Netflix were to start to sell movies, I would find that objectionable. I do find Steam objectionable, as well as most DRM.
Also, you are then susceptible to the very same MITM attacks by the VPN provider. (Although they do have an incentive to remain honest.)
The primary development goal of Tor is to prevent the request from being traced back to the requester. (As a secondary effect, it also bypasses various national/regional content blocking schemes.) Malicious exit relays are detrimental, but in theory the user should be aware of the trust issues involved. I would label this as a user education issue.
The major points being:
- If your traffic is on the Internet, unless it is encrypted (such as by SSL), it can be passively monitored with only moderate effort.
- If you are using Tor to reach the Internet, your traffic can't be traced back to you, but it still goes out over the Internet; see the previous point for more details. Tor can do nothing once the traffic is back on the Internet.
- Attacks such as sslstrip exist. Be on guard against them.
But hey, at least Win8 beat Congress!
A great example of this that I've seen is: Shine a spotlight at the moon (from Earth) and sweep it across the surface. You can move the spot faster than the speed of light, thus the wave moves faster than c, but no individual photon moves faster than c, and no information is conveyed faster than c.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division allows an employer not to pay a trainee if all of the following are true:
- The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
- The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
- The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
- The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;
- The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and
- The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.
I'll second this. Another similar option is Sandboxie. It sandboxes the browser, preventing any exploits from escaping into the rest of the system. Also, make sure they are using Chrome or Firefox. And finally, ad-blocking software makes a huge difference.
The point is to minimize the amount of information you actually have. You don't need to know the password itself, you only need to know that they know the password. So, you store just enough information to be able to check that the person attempting to log in knows the password.