If there's only one, it's not an option.
"This is about the time that defenders of copyright and trademark will chime in to suggest that intellectual property enforcement has led to the creation of new intellectual property, thus fulfilling its purpose..."
...Which sounds suspiciously like the Broken Window Fallacy.
I've been rooting for Ms. Jónsdóttir.
If you're worried about your desktop computer speakers being repurposed, chances are they're powered speakers. Those aren't going to be able to pass the signal backwards through the amplifier.
"There is a simple way to block the attack, keep something playing on your earphones, as an attack would have to check for active use before switching to microphone mode, as silence would make the user investigate their earphones. You do not need to be listening to it, just keep the output mode occupied."
... Or unplug your earphones when they're not in use.
What's new isn't that headphones can be turned into a microphone; it's the combination of that and the fact that the Realtek chipset's headphone output can be turned into an input. I wouldn't have guessed it, myself. (I mean the chipset thing. I also already knew that a dynamic speaker can be used as a mic.)
I use bluetooth headsets, myself. Those won't transmit sound back when they're in streaming mode, and if they're in headset mode, it's a live mic by design. (Also much lower quality sound.)
Except on my desktop when I'm playing video games, and I've got a mic plugged in anyway to talk to my gaming buddies. No need to get elaborate. But what you hear will probably not be terribly interesting unless you're a fan of Payday 2. And probably not then, either.
Just get Gary to demand a recount. Or Jill. Or both. It could be construed as political, but not the way it would for Hillary.
You have to pay a toll to leave (with a box of wine). Perhaps the NJTA has patented that.
"...that enabled our communications network to become the envy of the world."
Which world is that? Bizaro World?
_"He should have insisted on standing by his free speech rights..." Yes, and launched a test case! And the family foundation could have paid Trump's legal fees. Again._ Better him than me. I don't have a rich daddy who can pay to sue the entire state of New York (or in my case, California) from the change in his pocket.
"Wouldn't it be nice if one of the two people who will win tomorrow actually respected the damn First Amendment?
Remember, Gary Johnson is still on the ballot in every state..."
I too read that and thought, oh no, Techdirt is promoting the same false dilemma that everybody else is. But I ran through the logic in my head a few times and realized that by "two people who win" he was talking about whomever won the president and vice president votes.
Perhaps it could have been phrased better, though.
Well, you know the old saying... you can't make an omlette without breaking a few laws, court orders and constitutional amendments that guarantee against unreasonable searches and siezures.
I love that old saying. It just rolls off the tongue.
Years ago I wrote a blog post suggesting end-to-end verification. I got one Nirvana Fallacy reply, otherwise crickets.
I dunno. Sounds good in my head, but I don't know if it could really be done.
I think the reason for the policy is to prevent malicious, politically-motivated investigations from being conducted just to derail a candidate's campaign.
Ok why didn't those work? Sigh.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-_mdrHC1C93cdeJFq3fmEBQhpicg0kyZQ1GO4XO-uuwsCg9gU
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRG1oipHOcQdwQt1J34DEmQVcda6vhpPfJvERNnAEeXg-6bemV
+1 for the death star reference.
clicky
clicky
The smartest thing in my home is the cat.
I keep reading "Granados" as "Grandiose". But I'm thinking my subconscious may not be wrong.
"Laws are like sausages; it's best not to see them made" is supposed to be a metaphor. One which fits this situation perfectly... as a metaphor.