It would be nice if Slashdot itself was available on IPv6... After all, you would have thought that a site reporting on the latest and greatest in tech would have managed to adopt a technology fifteen years old by now!
It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...
There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.
Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.
For details of subscriptions, have a look at:
Outside of the UK though, they're not cheap!
Personally, I subscribe to the UK edition of Wired (even SWMBO likes it, which is saying something) and Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) as well as some camping/caravanning mags (yes, I'm an old fart with a family now). I used to get Computer Shopper (www.computershopper.co.uk) and PC Pro (www.pcpro.co.uk) but realised that by the time I'd received the magazine, I'd already read about the stories/reviews on-line two weeks before the magazine landed on my mat.
In my experience, cover disks are full of crapware and old versions of software (on the basis that you'll use that and then pay to upgrade to the latest version) - they always went straight in the bin.
No, it's credit card sized. How many times do you need to be told?
(ignore the border - that's removed after manufacture).
Percentage of State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at time of their offense, 1997
Not sure what you're saying here - looks to me like the majority of people said they weren't on drugs.
The logical conclusion to this data is that not being on drugs should be outlawed, no?
And my grandfather smoked 40 a day and lived till he was 97. That doesn't mean smoking's good for you.
Whilst I have every sympathy with your situation, there are exceptions to every rule and quoting one case as evidence against a general theory serves nobody well.
Your comment is irrelevant - please read the legislation.
Any cookie (be it tracking/temporary/whatever) is covered.
Why would you think that it's only about tracking cookies? The legislation is quite clear:
(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not store or gain access to information stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment -
(a)is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and
(b) has given his or her consent
(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2), consent may be signified by a subscriber who amends or sets controls on the internet browser which the subscriber uses or by using another application or programme to signify consent.
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information -
(a)for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or
(b)where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user.
The whole law is about storing and/or accessing data stored on a user's PC. Please tell me where 'tracking cookies' are mentioned?
It was found down the back of the sofa - it's the first place one should look for missing things.
"Petrol is a metal tank attached to your car"
"Ink is the stick you use to write on paper with"
"Music is the big square boxes attached to your amplifier"
Close enough it may be, but to definitively state something as fact which is quite clearly not fact (or, even if it is, only in a limited number of cases) when describing why legislation applies is just wrong.
They could quite simply have said, "Cookies are small pieces of text which your computer may choose to store." - there, simple. It also has the plus that it tells the user it's up to them whether they're stored.
But then we're not very hot on taking responsibility for what our computers do.
...when the people creating the law have no understanding of the subject they're legislating on.
"[cookies] are text files placed on your computer"
Say no more.
...given that you can buy ipod breakout boards on ebay with the serial connectors clearly marked, it doesn't seem to be a particularly well kept secret.
Reading this and thinking back, I can't help but think of the Kuebler-Ross model. Back in 2001 MS were in denial. We've been through anger, bargaining and (arguably) depression. Is this now acceptance?
I've got to ask the question, but... why?
I mean, if you don't want anybody to find this stuff when you're dead, why bother collecting it when you're alive?
And for the 'pictures' of the wife, what's wrong with a Truecrypt store?
And you would know this..... how?