Sounds like it makes sense to me

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Let's examine that, let's see

Oh, they did have a warrant.

Some of this article is outright wrong. Specifically, that Type 1 Diabetics over-produce glucagon. http://www.diabetesselfmanagem... Also, a common factor in T2D individuals is that their muscles are starting to store fat. Your link fails to account for any of that. Now, as for how it's wrong about T1D (I should know, I am one):

Glucagon is prescribed as an emergency injection for hypoglycemia. If the body of a T1D would be consistently putting out glucagon, then glucagon would be worthless as an emergency injection of it.

Now, that said, T1D react differently when insulin levels are low (which since they are not making any/enough of their own, means not injecting any/enough.) As a result of low insulin, the body stops being able to use the glucose that is available. The body cannot recognize a difference between too little insulin, and too little glucose. As a result, the body starts starving, even though the body is full of glucose. As a result the body starts responding as would any starving person: upregulation of glucagon to have the liver produce more glucose, to meet the body's needs.

But remember, the body already has plenty of glucose, just no insulin to make use of it. So thus, the liver just keeps dumping more and more glucose into the system, which isn't being used, and it builds up. At the same time, it's making ketones for other fuel. As the glucose and ketone levels rise, it starts to make the body acidic, which is buffered by bicarb, until the bicarb stores are depleted, and then the body starts going in to acidosis.

There are some T1D who regulate their glucose levels with a ketogenic diet. After the glycogen levels in the liver are depleted, it can't raise the BG in response to starvation, which leads to an easier to manage BG level. However, for these individuals, glucagon injections will not help them with a hypo. But since their body normally has largely switched over to ketone metabolism, they're unlikely to experience hypos anyways.

Well, really anything that breaks the cycle works great. But yeah, keto is a good choice because it specifically reduces carb intake, which leaves the liver as the only source of glucose in the body.

This definitely can rest the insulin response and help reset it.

Eh... this is more of a “we look forward to F/OSS developers developing ways of ensuring region coding matches the installing firmware.”

They're not really locking anything, they're just adding a region-locking value that must match before the image is flashed. Honestly, you could just work around this by providing the same image with all the different region-codes.

But I think they're hoping that the F/OSS community will develop a way of ensuring that specific region-codes get a specific firmware that ensures it complies with the RF transmission regulations of that region.

One should be aware that different countries have different regulations. Often those regulations concern RF transmitters and the like.

Unless someone or something tells you that your RF transmitting device will work in a foreign country, you should presume that it either a) won't. or b) would be against their regulations.

As I noted on the FB page, Type 2 Diabetes tends to be caused by a feedback loop of insulin insensitivity increasing insulin secretion causing increased insensitivity.

Just a little nudge out of that feedback loop can do incredible amounts of good. All you have to do is just break that cycle, and you can potentially walk away from having to constantly worry about your blood sugar. (But of course, much like weight loss, T2D requires a lifestyle change to keep away. It's not a 'take this pill, you're cured!' it's more of a 'pay more attention to your diet regardless, and eat better for the rest of your life.' ... which as the argument I've seen goes, it's a question of which is better or worse.

This reminds me that a T1D can get a pancreas implant, and then no/reduced need of insulin for years... but then you have to take antirejection drugs and all the wonderful side effects of transplants... so which is worse, the cure or the chronic pedantic busy work being your own pancreas...

You missed a 0 here. Not complaining, just point it out.

I've tried to find an article about this recently, but haven't been able to find the article that I read. But it turns out Google actually has your data collection lie to Google on a regular occasion. They get enough data that the lies shift out in the statistics, and in addition, no one at Google can actually trust specific data that you've sent Google...

So, I looked up the SMTP RFC, and yeah, the "local-part" (as it is determined) is to be treated as opaque by everyone BUT the domain in the address. Meaning that everyone must treat the addresses differently regardless of how GMail or anyone else interprets the semantics...

AND THEN, it turns out that while things are required to be case-insensitive, things are ALSO required to be case-sensitive. Basically, no one should ever assume that the local-part of the email address can be treated as caseless.

So, there you go, if Amazon doesn't let you sign up as both smith@example.com and Smith@example.com, then they're totally out of spec...

But to the deeper part, why would Amazon not disable an account when someone with a local-part semantic collision calls in to object to getting the emails? "These two addresses are treated as semantically identical by my email provider, please figure out how to fix the other person's account," doesn't seem like a horribly unreasonable request... I'm sure they'd do it for Smith@example.com coming from smith@example.com...

Bitching about the RFCs and complaining that GMail is the problem is entirely misreading the RFC, and misreading reality in fact...

So, much like the WMF flaw, "working as intended"?