Narrowing down "The List" to a single link in the evidence chain -- the drug receipt -- still returned far too many potential matches to be of use.
I think one of us misunderstood the article. I don't see anywhere that it states The List (as he calls it) has too many people on it. Rather, the problem he's trying to solve is finding the hundreds or possibly thousands of additional people who should be on the list but aren't. Did I miss something?
We are talking about goddamn human lives unjustly put behind bars here. It does not matter how much it will cost.
I would certainly agree with that, but I don't know if it's a majority position. I suspect many people would not want a lot of money spent on such a problem, because "most of them are probably guilty of something anyway". I know, it's disgusting. I'm with you though - there should be no consideration of whether to seek justice for the wrongfully convicted based on how much it will cost.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about evidence from computers that are wide open
Added up, those seven categories of Windows(TM) total ("HIGH vulnerabilities") == 168, which kind of blows the doors off the others' paltry 64, 32, and 24 respectively.
Here's what he says about that:
If we had to group the different Windows versions under one entry the statistics would look like this:
68 total vulnerabilities 47 high severity20 medium severity 1 low severity
As you can see a lot of Windows vulnerabilities apply to multiple Windows versions and because of that there is not a huge difference between the number for the entire Windows operating systems family and the numbers for different Windows versions.
So if accurate, that would put Windows as a whole in second place behind OS X, which is surprising. NIST presumably has no axe to grind and I have no reason to doubt their numbers, but I didn't look into how the blog author consolidated the Windows vulnerabilities.
IE has more high vulnerabilities than Chrome and Firefox combined though.
Re: Not the law as such doing harm, it's Google refusing to pay the pittance.
Google has chosen to use its power to harm Spain's entire economy
This actually shows why Google should not be allowed to operate just however it chooses.
So what's the problem exactly? Spain passed a law, and Google obeyed it.
But here it's blame Spain rather than the corporation that if can't use the values others create to gain money, then it'll deliberately harm them.
You're blaming Google for following the law? Or are you saying they should have obeyed the law in some other way that is less beneficial to Google and more beneficial to Spanish news organizations? Why?
In most cases where the cops take money from someone they've stopped, that person is usually given a choice of letting the cops take the money or be arrested.
Do you mean a cop might threaten to arrest you if you don't voluntarily hand over your money? I'm sure that happens, but I've never heard of any actual law that says the subject has a choice of arrest or seizure.