Campus police are state troopers, and thanks to federal and state law campus property is treated differently than private property. Campus administration normally takes this to mean they can do whatever they want, and if you disagree then you get fined or arrested. Don't pay the fine, don't get your transcript. So you can't transfer and you can't graduate.
While this is the first time I've heard of such blatant disregard of free speech issues, my Uni required us to fill out "party permits" or the cops would bust in and kick everyone out. What constitutes a "Party" is up to the officer. Too many people, well that's a party.
That's a violation of the First Amendment, but the reason no one does anything is because they would find something else to charge everyone with. That friend of a friend that you don't know, but is there. If he's under 21 and brought a flask, everyone's screwed. It doesn't matter if the flask was in a backpack and no one knew it was there.
Umm, no. That would be the National Reconnaissance Office. Furthermore, NASA is no more part of the military than any other government agency. Seriously, that was one of the founding principles of the organization.
The FBI needs to be careful when it comes to things like this. Even if it is legal, and I'm not saying it is, it certainly sets a double standard.
Any time you have something along the lines of "Normal people can't do this, but the government can," you run into tricky balance of power issues. Even worse, if the government does something too often or particularly bad people start asking "Why can't I do this. If the government is doing it then it might be illegal, but it's probably not immoral."
This doesn't even get into the abuse of power issues. Just compare the Lori Drew case to what the government has admitted to doing here. In the first they tried to twist a hacking law to apply to violating a websites Terms of Service. In the second, they deliberately hacked potentially innocent third party computers. This clear abuse of power is why many people don't trust the government, and are beginning to believe that laws have lost touch with their moral roots.
I doubt it was a hack. However, I'd put good money on it being a drunk or disgruntled employee.
I honestly feel sorry for the store, but think that they could have handled things better. Instead of shutting down their account they could have used it to issue an apology. The most likely possibility is the owner/manager knowing nothing about social media, so when things went wrong the instinctive reaction was to just cancel the account.
Evolution is amazing. Especially since all it's based on is the statistical likelihood of random mutations affecting birthrates. It is neither good nor bad, it's merely based on statistics. And lets face it, everyone wants their child to be above average.
If you want a good science fiction series dealing with the potential of genetically engineered humans look at Gundam Seed.
No one is saying that they are ready to start tinkering with human babies just yet, but let me ask you a question. If you could know that your child would have a chronic illness, would you have the test done. How about if it could be fixed? Sequencing a persons entire genetic code is still relatively slow and expensive, but it only has to be done once.
Here's another thing to think about. Umbilical stem cells. These things are turning out to be hugely important. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few hospitals start offering to store those in case the newborn needs an organ grown in thirty or forty years.
Re: Maybe also motivated by clumsy DoD site-blocking policies
Hmm, that's an interesting possibility. Unfortunately, having necessary military information and services sharing the same domain as self hosted websites is just a bad idea.
I'm aware that different subdomains can be completely separated, but the cost of a domain name is so cheap that it's not worth the potential trouble. The largest reason to not go with a separate domain name is shared hosting. At that point domain names are the least of the universities security troubles.
The sad thing is the reason why cell phones make the effort.
It's not about good will. First, it was because carriers liked the lock in. Remember those old java phones where the only way to get new ringtones was to buy a 30 second clip for $5? The other reason was Steve Jobs and his control freak tendencies.
If you look at cell phone security, most of it is stupidly weak. The only thing it's good for is keeping non technical users from breaking anything too badly.
They're using man in the middle attacks. So, you're securely talking to a NSA computer which is then talking to the real server.
The hard part is for the NSA computer to pretend to be the real server. There are three ways for them to do so. First, they could have demanded/stolen the secret key and certificate from the server they're trying to intercept traffic to. Second, they could have a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) tell the user that they are the server. Third, they could use their massive supercomputers to fake a valid certificate.
We've heard a decent bit about the first one. The second one happens because browsers operate on a chain of trust that is completely invisible to a normal user. It would be easiest for them to go this route. The third method was actually demonstrated by a couple of researchers. They used a bunch of PS3s to sign a valid md5 based certificate. It's an old attack, but someone on that huge invisible chain of trust is probably still vulnerable.
Like Snowden said. The problem isn't the encryption, it's everything else. In this case, web browsers relying on public key cryptography with some major flaws.
Google wanted to loose. Now there are precedents for most major courts regarding frand patents. Microsoft's mobile division makes a huge amount of money of threatening to sue Android phone makers. Combine that with the Cisco ruling preventing Google from being directly involved in any lawsuit that does crop up, and losing these Motorola cases actually helps Google.
Don't be so sure of that. I've had paypal do very strange things to my account before. While I finally figured out what they were doing it wasn't a fun experience. I had to call my bank before I figured it all out.
The best part was when the guy on the phone told me he didn't use paypal, had dealt with too many paypal horror stories, and offered to close my account and make a new one that paypal didn't know about for me.
Try looking up the way chargemaster prices are set up. Insurance gets around the issue via collective bargaining. Sadly, people who go to the hospital, especially the ER, need treatment now, and can't afford to shop around. Especially since you don't know the total cost until after treatment.*
They might give a number, but if anything happens expect to pay several times that amount.
Facebook constantly updates their UI, so how the privacy settings are set changes every couple of months. What's worse, they had a nasty habit of resetting the privacy stuff to the default.
I share things with friends that at worst might be mildly embarrassing if an employer could see them, but that's it. If I don't need a security clearance, then there's no reason for anyone not on my allow list to have access to the data. Sadly, I can't trust that the settings won't get changed without me knowing it.
This is Facebook's big hurdle. People are realizing that Facebook is not inherently private, so they're self censoring. That decreases the value of the website, and turns people to things like snapchat.
Given the importance of user trust to a site like Facebook, I'm surprised by them walling this report off. Then again, it is Facebook....
Wow. What a bunch of entitled little shits they are. Why do people allow their kids to join that organisation, given what I've seen from my (completely non-US) spot? Then again, given that they seem to be run by a group that favours conformity over all else, probably shouldn't be surprised.
Because most local groups are fine. It's only when you get to the upper levels that problems really start to become apparent. You have a vocal minority who are huge douchebags, but most people in the organizations just don't care.
Of course, that might also be selection bias. Scouting is popular in rural American communities. These are typically areas that have a high percentage of Christians.
The fun starts when being an Eagle Scout is equated with leadership skills. In many ways it's true. Being an Eagle Scout takes time, dedication, and at least some leadership abilities. This results in many men in leadership roles being Eagle Scouts.
Keep in mind that the cut off age to become an eagle scout is 18. That means these men who are now leaders probably did not deal too much with Boy Scout internal politics while they were in the organization. Combine this with Rosy Retrospection and you have politicians who give favors to an organization that they remember fondly from their childhood.
Of course, all this is supposition. I have no facts to back it up. So please, feel free to draw your own conclusions.