It's kind of funny - before clicking the link to even see what kind of non-profit it is, I thought of a non-profit know that collects old computers, images them, and sells them. That was before I read that the link had anything to do with that. Basic desktops really haven't advanced that much in the last few years, so there are a lot of "old" computers being given away or sold for garage sale prices that are perfectly usable. A sizeable portion of the time, people are replacing computers and the only thing "wrong" with them is a bunch of malware.

So you want to fund giving away refurbished computers? Sell the best ones. Selling one for $250 will fund reimaging / reconfiguring 10 others. Sell one for $125, that will probably cover your costs of five giveaways.

"That is where America's occupy movement failed."

That, and the fact that they had no goal, nothing specific they were trying to accomplish other than to complain that some people (ie college grads) earn more than others (mostly dropouts and liberal arts majors). Also, their complete laziness - refusal to DO anything other than sit in a park smoking weed.

So yeah, Turks, don't fall into those two traps. Find an actual solution to advocate for, then do something about it. It seems that getting high and whining doesn't improve your life effectively.

90% of tech support is troubleshooting skills and communication with the customer. Learning to apply those same skills to a different technology isn't that big of a deal.

When interviewing for tech people, I ask how they would go about fixing something - anything. I can train a good car mechanic to fix networks a lot easier than I can train someone who knows all about networking but nothing about troubleshooting.

You wete do right on 1-11, then out comes the GIANT tinfoil hat for #12.

That post got mangled.

While in his senate office, you mean? Assuming that were true, it wouldn't matter because this was a campaign meeting, at a private office, not his senate office. Personally, I think leaders should be able to have frank, honest discussions with advisors. I know that JFK's private consultations with his attorney general (and brother) helped avoid World War 3. For the consultations to be forthright, that means they aren't public, and therefore carefully worded for political purposes.

While in his semester office, you mean? Assuming that were true, it elephant matter nectar this was a campaign meeting, at a private office, not his senate office. Personally, I think leaders should be able to have frank, honest discussions with advisors. I know that JFK's private consultations with his attorney general (and brother) helped avoid World War 3. For the consultations to be forthright, that means those discussions aren't public.

That's easy on Linux. Much easier than on Windows because everything is just a file, there's no registry or anything like that, and no copy protection. In some of the very first Linix distros, that's pretty much how the installer worked - it treasured a "backup" of a default system. Just copy the files and install the bootloader, basically.

I created a system that backs up your Linux system to a virtual machine, so the backup can be booted directy, or be restored by copying it to a hard drive. Even cooler, Linux can act as an external drive enclosure, so the empty machine can be plugged into the backup and booted from the backup file directly, wirh the hardware believing it's booting from a local drive...

<quote>
can't accept that as valid constitutionally. To me it looks horribly corrupt and subject to tremendous potentiality for abuse. (If I have to give you the evidence, then I don't have it to prove my innocence. If I give you access to my signing key, then you can forge messages and claim they came from me. etc.)
</quote>

The law handles both concerns. He was ordered to provide a decypted copy, so he still has (or can get) a copy and he doesn't give up the secret key. That's how it's normally handled with documentary evidence - both sides get a copy.

In SOME CP cases (not this one), after seeing the evidence and seeing that it really is CP, a judge will rule that the defense only gets access to the CP evidence, they don't get to keep a copy. In the cases I'm familiar with, that decision has been made reasonably - when the photos or videos MIGHT be underage, when the defense wants to contest that, they've gotten a copy. When it's been unquestionably CP, the perv was not allowed to keep a copy to enjoy.

I've seen other injustices with regard to CP cases, but the issues you're raised have been addressed pretty well.

Assuming you don't do silly things like run completely unknown commands, you're pretty safe. JavaScript and Flash is cross-platform, though. I've seen one Linux system where their Yahoo email account was compromised, probably by malicious JavaScript. It might have been phishing, though, or a combination. The main things I do for security are - run most updates provided by the distro and browser, have backups, don't run services I don't use, and I have a separate browser for Flash and Java. Most Flash is ads or pointless eyecandy so I don't miss not having Flash in my daily browser. Even YouTube doesn't need Flash these days, so I open the Flash browser maybe once per month, if that.

TEEX.com has some free online cybersecurity courses that may have good reminders for your and your family members regarding safe browsing habits and simple security practices.

I do see your point. On the other hand, if I have some evidence of your innocence locked in a safe and I'm ordered to turn it over, I have to unlock the safe and hand you the evidence. I can't just hand you the safe and say "good luck".

More accurately, if it's good encryption, it would be more like encasing the paper evidence in concrete, then handing you the block of concrete.

There are two sides to this question. The fact that the judge ruled he did NOT have to decrypt it, then when the facts changed ruled the other way means that the judge is considering both sides.

Spending 30-60 minutes per day learning so you become competent yourself works a lot better then whining about people knowing that you're not very good yet. So does finding where your talent lies, if programing isn't something you can learn to do well.

I am in process of learning myself. I would like to be a competent kernel programer and competent to code on world class projects like Apache. So far, I'm a competent business applications programmer.

Two internets for you, and for GP

Do you actually have a plan to do that? A plan, as opposed to a nebulous wish? I had such a plan. My plan was 15% increase per month for 12 months. I then followed that plan, thereby increasing my income by 15% per month.

On the other hand, if Intel planned to increase by 20% every 18 months, that would practically guarantee they wouldn't double in that time period. I'm guessing your plan for the next 18 months, to the extent that you have one, is to leave your income exactly the same as it is today. Is that more accurate?

"If am coerced into giving you evidence ..."
That's the legal distinction. You CAN be forced to hand over evidence. You can't be forced to testify. If the cops have evidence that something I have is evidence of a crime, they can get a court order and take possession of that evidence.

The current ruling is that the files are evidence, so he can be forced to hand them over. Before any drive was decrypted, it hadn't been proven that the he COULD decrypt the drives. Maybe he bought them used and the previous owner encrypted them. The judge's earlier ruling was that he couldn't be forced to SAY "I can decrypt those files (they are mine). Giving up the key would be equalivent to testifying that the files were his. That would have been testimony and therefore protected under the fifth amendment.

  Now that the judge is satisfied it's proven that the encrypted drives ARE his, the big question is "what is on the drive" and that's a question of evidence, not testimony. As evidence, it's not protected by the fifth amendment protection against TESTIFYING against useful.