Did anyone else read Rapiscan as Rapescan or is it just me?
It certainly isn't just you. I read it that way too.
Though I think a better name for it, based on the context would be Pillagescan (as in how much money is lost on these useless devices,) since it is really the only part of the process where you don't get fondled (though that comes after they get to see you naked.)
Can I sell prints of the Mona Lisa this way? What about copies of Martin Luther King's dream speech?
IANAL, but short answer, yes and yes.
The Mona Lisa painting is free of Copyright entanglements, and you can always go to where it is hanging and take a picture of it (provided the museum doesn't have any restrictions on photography or you are able to do so without getting caught if it does,) and there are public domain and royalty free pictures of the Mona Lisa already available online.
It's obviously bad to inform companies of their lack of security.
What always bothers me most about this is the belief, on the part of the company, that they are the smartest people in the room, and that nobody will ever be smarter than them about their own processes, procedures, devices, etc.. Then someone comes along and smashes their belief, and they immediately assume that that is the only person on the planet that managed to figure it out.
If someone thought it up, then it is a pretty good bet that someone else has thought it up before, is currently thinking about it, or will shortly be thinking about it. There are 6+ billion people on the planet, and it is a pretty safe bet that more than one person knows about a security flaw.
Hence the reason for open disclosure of flaws in the first place...let everyone know right now that the cat is out of the bag so there is no possibility that "I didn't know" can trump bad security practices and people hurt by not knowing that the companies they are providing data to are being so promiscuous with it (something I automatically assume now.)
Wait. According to the lower court, if they had actually encountered the robbery suspect, they wouldn't have been able to frisk him? Even though they were "ordered to locate and arrest" him? That makes zero sense. I'm pretty much 100% sure that officers are allowed to frisk people they arrest.
The Terry Patdown is only allowed when you have reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, and a reasonable belief that the individual may be a risk to you in that they may have a weapon and may use it against you.
It cannot be used without reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, and the courts determined that no reasonable suspicion existed.
I remember growing up my school district tried several school buses fueled by propane. These were retrofit kits installed on existing buses. The next state safety inspection for those buses resulted in a threat to decertify those buses if the propane kits were not removed. Turns out the laws at that time did not allow propane to be used as a motor fuel on a school bus. Since then the laws have changed and now I see propane fueled school buses all over the place.
Most buses are fueled with LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) which is different than propane.
When we used propane in our forklifts, they were stored in a propane tank outside of the passenger portion of the forklift, so that leaking propane would dissipate harmlessly into the environment. I believe the buses that use LP (Liquified Propane) do the same, usually storing the propane in the same place that LNG buses do (on the roof or outside of the passenger compartment,) but I would have to confirm this since my knowledge of the subject is a few years old.
It turns out that there is a bit of risk, but not of the type that I imagined. Heating propane tanks cause the propane to expand, which increases internal pressure. If that pressure gets too high, then a relief valve opens allowing the propane to escape the vessel.
The most dangerous place to store a propane tank, on a hot day, is inside your house or garage (and less of a risk inside a car.) You should never place a propane tank in an enclosed space, because it may release propane even without being a hot day, but the risk is rarely the tank itself exploding. You are more likely to have problems with lack of oxygen entering an enclosed area with a propane release than you are with fire danger, since propane, being heavier than air, tends to push oxygen out of the enclosed space (same issue with CO2 and other liquified air tanks.) Which is why you should never drive with a propane tank inside the vehicle.
Most people don't think about the danger, but there tend to be a lot of things that have an open flame (pilot light) in both locations, and a release of pressure as a safety mechanism for a tank may result in the propane released igniting, causing a fire and burning down a house.
Re: Wrong - blowing up potential bombs is standard practice
In this case your insights are off base. Applying "strong force" to disrupt a potential explosive device without risking the bomb squad trying to disassemble and or disarm, at literal risk of life and limb, is standard practice. The point is to apply a moderate force to destroy either the triggering mechanism or the primer mechanism.
This is absolutely correct, the standard response to "I think this is a bomb" is sadly, "Lets blow it up to see if it is a bomb." No, "Jeesh, this may not be a bomb, in a matter of fact, it is 99% certainty of not being one, lets check to make sure." No, "I wonder who owns this car, maybe we should check with them to see if this may be a bomb."
Whether the standard response is correct in all circumstances is exactly what this article is about. His insights are spot on.
When I was a lot younger (before 9/11,) I was sitting in a football stadium with a good friend at a sibling's graduation ceremony. His girlfriend was graduating, and we were both there early enough to get good seats. He decided to go and buy some flowers as a present for his girlfriend, and left his backpack sitting on the seat next to me. Within seconds of him leaving, two passing police officers jumped at the opportunity to "search his backpack for explosives". When they grabbed it, I told them immediately that it was my friend's backpack, that he had just left to buy flowers for his girlfriend and didn't want to take the backpack with, and that I was watching it for him. They ignored me, searched his backpack (illegally, I might add, since they didn't have legal authority to do so as it wasn't legally abandoned,) and finding nothing, left. I told my friend when he returned, and he laughed, wondering if they enjoyed looking at his change of clothes (which were the only things in the bag.)
Years later (after 9/11,) at the airport, I noticed a piece of luggage left unattended for quite some time just outside the terminal. I brought it to the attention of the police officer, and he picked up the luggage and brought it into the terminal in order to find any identifying information to contact the person who obviously had lost it (obvious to the officer.)
Looking back on both incidents, neither incident turned out to warrant any sort of extreme response. Neither the backpack nor the luggage contained an explosive. Yet, according to standard policy, both bags should have been destroyed by the bomb squad to determine if the bags contained explosives. Extreme, and hardly justifiable or even reasonable.
Re: Re: Re: Please don't let facts get in your way...
It is legal for the government to print money for use as tender in commercial transactions, try printing your own and see what happens.
Some would argue that Bitcoin is exactly that...printing money for use as tender in commercial transactions. The government has hemmed and hawed about how it is wrong for a while, but so far, it has been legal. If I print out a bunch of paper that says United Bank of Ltlw0lf, and use it as legal tender, and others accept it, so long as the government is receiving their tax, there is no issue with it. It is really no different than writing an IOU or a contract saying you'll do something in exchange for something else.
The problem is when you try to print what looks like the government's money that you get into trouble. The issue is that while most people would look at a piece of paper that says United Bank of Ltlw0lf and laugh (and not accept it as legal tender,) they tend to treat stuff that looks like the government's money as the real deal, since it has the backing of the government which makes it "legal tender".
He obviously should have hacked them and updated their security settings. Being a concerned bystander is no defense
That has been tried in the past. Didn't work so well.
The biggest problem is that even if you manage to hack the system and set the security settings, the FBI shows up at your door for hacking the system and the company presses charges because they can no longer get into their system because you updated their security settings. Nobody has GPG set up on their email browser, so they can't decrypt the email you sent them with their updated passwords and instructions on how to log in and change the passwords.
Hopefully they'll take the high road and fix their stuff without involving poor Ms. Streisand in the mix.
I love how they try to have it both ways. Limiting me to 700GB/mo should mean they are selling me 700GB.
I think what they want is a "timeshare" agreement where you agree to rent a line, but then have all sorts of stipulations on how you can use the rented line and how much of the line you can use.
Timeshares are evil no matter how it is done, the consumer always gets sold a shabby set of goods where the rules change on the whims of the owner and they never really get to own what they paid for. Like pyramid schemes and get-rich-quick schemes, timeshares should be outlawed since they are, in practice, get-rich-quick schemes where the owner doesn't actually have to maintain the property and can just pocket the fees without providing what they are contracted to provide.
These usage caps really are absurd and obviously nothing more than a cash grab.
Exactly. Which is why I despise Cox, but don't really hate them. Like AC says below, they are a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, neither choice is any good, but they are best of a bad choice.
You can be held responsible for parking tickets and tolls even if someone else was driving your car.
This was tried in California with red-light cameras and "snitch tickets" and it ended up so poorly for the cities involved that most just dumped their cases. The city would say that they got a good picture of the driver, and in cases where the picture didn't match the license of the owner, they would send out a snitch ticket that said "tell us who the driver was or we'll prosecute you for their crime" and in most of the cases that went to court, they were dismissed. Extortion is extortion, regardless to whether it is the state or an individual.
You can be held responsible for parking tickets, since your car *is* parked illegally regardless to who parked it, but I am not aware of any cases where the owner ended up having to pay a fine for a vehicle illegally parked after it was stolen (though I do know of cases where the owner was on the hook to pay impound fees when their car was recovered...those guys are crooks no matter what due process is in place.) Borrowed is a different situation, but a police report of a stolen vehicle is usually all that is required to have a ticket for illegal parking dismissed.
I have to be the one person in the US who does not hate their ISP.
I don't hate Cox. I despise them, but I don't hate them. They have been marginally better at doing their job than others I've had the privilege of dealing with. They keep their network up (usually, though far less than 99% of the time, and they have no system in place to notify users if the network outage they are experiencing is known about or not, so I am forced to call them to find out whether they are aware their network is down or not,) and they don't complain about my usage that much (I am a "power user" but still usually am well below their caps even as a Netflix/Steam/GoG/Linux Updates user.) Their caps are livable, even-though unnecessary and potentially illegal, and up until recently (unless you live in Cleveland,) they were "soft-caps" in which you were warned if you went over them, but weren't charged for the difference or weren't throttled. And for the most part, they've actually maintained their network and upgraded with the times instead of being overly greedy and pocketing your monthly fee while letting their network decay.
My problem with Cox is that they are capricious and tend to be greedy and anti-consumer in their attitudes (just enough to keep you around and not turn you away, but not enough to make you happy about having them as your only option for cable internet.) They don't go out of their way to get me to like them, because they don't have to...they are the only game in town and I should like the service they are providing.
But it is stories like this that make me feel just a tiny bit better about my ISP.
While I don't know Cox's IP management strategy, I would be surprised if it was static.
Home users are not static. Business users pay three times as much for slower bandwidth and the same restrictions as home users, but get a static IP address. Home users get DHCP, but the IPs, once issued, stay pretty static until they are offline for a period of time, in which they get assigned a new dynamic address. I've figured that the timeout for the reassignment appears to be about 30 minutes or so. I've had power outages or network outages that have lasted less than 30 minutes where I am reissued the same IP address, but anything longer than 30 minutes usually (though not always) results in a new IP address. Change your MAC address on your device, and you will be issued a new IP address (if it even works, sometimes I have to call them and have them reprovision the line if the MAC address of my router changes, but usually I just get a new IP address.)
The only possible thing RightsCorp can be doing is counting up infringements per IP - which, given the accuracy of the detection method (appalling) and the movement of IP's among Cox' customers, can't tell you much... and that is before considering who in a household (or elsewhere) might be the infringer - that they cannot know.
Cox does appear to be logging their assignments (as any DHCP server should do,) though their clocks must be accurate in order to determine who has any IP address at any time. However, I did hear from a friend that they received an infringement notice for an IP address that they had, but had been reassigned to someone else, but they called Cox Technical Support and complained that nobody was home during the time of the infringement and the only computer attached directly to the cable modem was off, so they couldn't be the infringers, and they heard no further from Cox on the issue. So it is likely that they might not be all that careful in making sure their logs have the proper timestamps and may be a little iffy on the windows.
Be nice to the estate, they don't have much longer to live...
I think what we are seeing is the metaphorical end-times for the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle experienced himself in 1929-1930. The point at which a human realizes their days are very short and the number of days left is in the hundreds, if not tens, and they are fighting against hope to stay alive/relevant.
Of course, if it were up to me...we'd never get to this point because the copyright would have expired long before Sir Doyle did.
Great, now Roger Waters is going to come in here and complain about Techdirt being a gallery of rogues, stealing his precious (work) without even so much as an attribution. Those hobbits, always stealing the precious.
It is only intrusive to those types of people when they do not like what is being said, otherwise none of the overly offensive crap people say on a daily basis is of no concern to them.
I agree, but I'd say it further in that it is only intrusive to those types of people when they cannot control the person who says something they do not like being said.
People say things I don't like all the time. I don't care. It might get me upset, it might bother me, but I am not the type of person that likes to control the thoughts and actions of others, and really it isn't the end of the world. Sticks and stones, and all that. There are many things I can control, but someone's ideas and thoughts, I cannot control and don't want to either. The best I can do is explain my position, hope for the best, and then walk away. And even then, it usually isn't worth my time or effort to even say anything.
But there is a large section of the community that isn't happy when they aren't in control of other's thoughts and ideas (or even actions.) To them, this is entirely intrusive and they do everything to "make the person listen," "make the person change their mind," or even "make the person mute if they can't say the things I want to hear."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOP for Apple
Ah, that makes more sense and I can see why that would leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Don't get me wrong...Apple makes great hardware (expensive, but great,) and I have no problem buying Apples, so long as you go in with the realization that the computer you just spent a lot of money on will likely not be supported in the future (the distance to that point in the future is variable, and depends on the whims of the company, not you.)
And their stuff runs Debian quite well (and actually, my PowerPC MacMini runs faster with Debian than it ran with MacOSX, which I use as a Kiosk machine.) The added advantage of running Debian on a Mac is that you can run MacOS X virtual machines (legally) without much difficulty, though hackintoshes make it pretty simple too (though less legally.)