I will buy this. It has a great price and even if it isn't the greatest computer in the world, the fact that you can just put it out in the sun to power it up makes it convenient. Can't wait!
Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group members making the charge.
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-your-da...http://gcn.com/articles/2011/11/10/cloud-hack-via-google.asp...
i guess this was before google poured the billions into it with it's engineering elite, class-A data security. Google may be more secure but google is also a big target. a personal cloud is less likely to get hacked. if i live in the woods with $1000 and only have one lock, i'm probably less likely to be broken into than a giant bank filled with tons of money in the middle of a city, even with it's heavier security.
What I truly love about this article is it shows how many open source alternatives exist out there. I think the big problem with people is they think there isn't a tool that can be equivalent to what they use now. I am also stuck on facebook. I like your indirect solution though!
How did they get this information about the attack? According to the NSA, the leaking of confidential data to the World last month allowed terrorists to avoid their spying techniques. Apparently it wasn't as big of a hit as they portrayed. shocking.
http://news.yahoo.com/google-pressure-cookers-backpacks-visi... also an article from yahoo. the problem is that we have to wonder if this is real. it shouldn't be. it should be found in a book written about a horrible distopia in the future... but it's not.
they did mention it offhandedly, the woman(i was only listening) started making a list of things that the nsa should release yearly including how many crimes 702 and whatever helped prevent, and the main guy asked her to add a view, in the light of the news posted today, but said they would investigate that further at a later time. sorry it's poorly detailed but just wanted you to know it was mentioned.
On cspan this morning, the phrased it as: a secret interpretation. the fact that those two words can even sit together hurts my head. How do you secretly interpret something one way, but openly interpret another way.
I asked this in a deeper thread, but i would like to reask anyone that can explain. If the NSA is tapping pipelines as it seems they are, wouldn't the sources such as facebook and google all come online at the same time? if they were in fact referring to the pipeline access as their way into facebook and company, why did they all have different onboarding times? wouldn't they have all come on at the same time: the time when they tapped the pipelines? Maybe i misunderstand the process. I get that maybe they had to write some interface that interpreted the packets and sorted them as such, but that wouldn't take years.
My question is, if they did this, why did each company have it's own join date in the prism timeline? wouldn't it just all happen at once? if they were tapping pipelines then the data would be collected regardless of the system, yet they all had very distinct dates that they were onboarded.
that's sad. I wonder if anyone has done a case study on companies that listen to their IT and implement as much as possible compared to the "let's just make it pass inspection" guys. I know in every cartoon I've seen, the first group wins, but in reality it may truly be worth it to skimp
I am seeing this more and more. I've seen the ability to have a phone take over an airplane, a laptop control a car, now a laptop taking over a ship... where are all the security guys at when this stuff is implemented?
i think the issue is: 10% of the people are informed enough to realize what's going, and yes, some of them are acting. the majority of Americans don't know what's going on, and many of them don't care, which is sad.
my head just exploded trying to grasp this... objects don't move but i can see them, but i can only see them because of light. therefore, if light doesn't move, if the object does, can i see it on the object?
I like the idea of 3rd parties designing new looks for google glass. With smart phones, all the customization is in the display, and I guess the case. With glass, all i have is the choices someone else gives me. It would be great if the choices were not just expanded colorwise, but look wise. these glasses aren't necessarily for me, but i think it shines a light on a cool concept of reskinning google glass.
sorry. my slang trickled over into the internet. I learned what a demarcation point was after I had heard the word, so i always called it in my head, a d-mark. i know what it is now, but the term is stuck in my head. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's done that. I remember thinking euthanasia was about children living in Asia...
i worked for a company that wanted a new office in Chicago and it fell on me to handle the internet installation. You'd think it would be as easy as, run cable to office and be done. Nope. we had to get att to run it to the d-mark then had a union company run it from the d-mark to the office, but they wouldn't touch the office. i had to get another contractor to come up and finish the wiring of the office itself. that didn't include the actually company i used for internet, that had to have their own tech come in and "install" the box (this consisted of plugging it in and watching the green lights light up). What a mess.
i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a lot of those same users, might not want to put money into a project. Speculation.
I'm sick of the same arguments about this stuff, so I'm just going to say this, "legal" and "constitutional" are not synonyms, so I wish that the government employees would stop using them hand in hand. Just because there is a law saying you can do it, does not make it Constitutional.
good catch. I know i had heard that there was someone testifying to congress under oath, so I made the assumption that that was the process. It's interesting that there is no true reason to stop congress from always having people offer a testimony under oath, yet they allow it. another blatant loop hole.