law

8 ms·

1.
Security expert said he accessed plane controls mid-flight(washingtonpost.com)
1 points by law 11y ago|0 comments
2.
by law 12y ago
I tested it with Cyanogenmod's stock browser customized with an iPhone user-agent, and it also works fine. It seems like Google is trying to coerce "eligible users" into using the Google Play app, but won't prevent other
3.
How Ross Ulbricht's Defense Was Derailed(forbes.com)
8 points by law 12y ago|0 comments
4.
by law 12y ago
This is very likely the Enron corpus that was used: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~./enron/
5.
Feds' Silk Road Investigation Broke Privacy Laws, Defendant Tells Court(wired.com)
2 points by law 12y ago|0 comments
6.
by law 12y ago
> What happens when say a company like Comcast owns a stake in a company like Netflix and conspire to extort a competitor like Hulu (asking for exorbitant amounts of cash for speed). Comcast actually owns part of Hulu, but its a purely e
7.
by law 13y ago
One of the best purchases that I have ever made is the Kinesis Advantage keyboard.[1] In fairness, I was tempted to return it shortly after purchasing, but opted to give it one full week of use before making my decision. It took a couple da
8.
by law 13y ago
For how long do you keep the information?
9.
by law 13y ago
> It's important to understand that when FSF talks about "freedom" they explicitly mean keeping the users free - not the developers. As a developer, I'm personally biased towards being free to other developers, and I think GPL (v2 and e
10.
by law 13y ago
Would you mind expanding upon why you presumably prefer GPLv2 over v3? Additionally, if you prefer the MIT/BSD licensing model, why not choose Apache v2?
11.
by law 13y ago
> FeedSnap's goal is simple: to provide a reliable, capable, and actively maintained FeedBurner replacement for your beloved RSS feed. In keeping with that goal, is there any chance that you will open source the work you've done under a
12.
by law 13y ago
You can estimate the likelihood that a particular sentence is spam by calculating the log sum of n-gram probabilities of sub-sequences in a sentence. These probabilities are obtained from a sufficiently general training set, such as Google'
13.
by law 13y ago
It depends on the context. When combined with other subjective pronouns to form the subject of a verb, "I" is correct (as in "You and I are commenting on this topic"). However, when combined with other objective pronouns to form the object
14.
by law 13y ago
Why not GPLv3?
15.
by law 13y ago
So does GPLv3.
16.
by law 13y ago
This article is absolute trash. The 4th amendment doesn't apply to your data hosted on Google's servers, and ECPA and CALEA are essentially meaningless here. The truth is that Facebook and Google can give away (or even sell) your data to th
17.
by law 14y ago
Right, I'm not arguing that. My point is that it's considerably more difficult for them to go this route; they need to convince a judge to affix his signature (and his credibility) to a warrant by demonstrating the existence of probable cau
18.
by law 14y ago
Not without a warrant, which is presumably useless against good encryption. Moreover, the dominant view is that a judge can't compel you to disclose the encryption key unless the authorities have already seen what was encrypted.
19.
by law 14y ago
They can, and they do. It's not a violation of the Fourth Amendment if a private company hands over (or sells) data to the government.
20.
by law 14y ago
It's a wonderfully designed site; I love how the splash page draws your eyes to where they belong, without being overly obtrusive. One criticism: on http://redstamp.ca/development/ , you may want to change the menu that changes position as
21.
by law 14y ago
That's not the problem. The problem is that the e-mails, by their very nature, are opt-out rather than opt-in. One reason people seem to complain is because they have to waste time logging into the site, finding the e-mail opt-out section,
22.
by law 14y ago
I don't think I saw The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte (available at http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Display-Quantitative-Inform... ) on the list. The Boston Globe's review is 100% correct: it's a visual St
23.
by law 14y ago
Except patent trolls are not even close to the first groups of people to notice this "bug." Many "white hat hackers" came first; there are many law review articles published concerning the flaws in the patent system. It's not like Congress
24.
by law 14y ago
To lobby a software company? That makes no sense. If anything, that hacker would be lobbying Congress...and frankly, that's his or her prerogative. I don't care what they do. It's not dirty money just because you say it is; it's legally-acq
25.
by law 14y ago
> If the banks found a loophole in mortgage regulations that allowed them to take the houses of people who were paying, should we admire them for finding a bug, or vilify them for taking people's houses? You're ignoring the probability
26.
by law 14y ago
Because socially punishing the NPEs takes the focus away from the real problem: punishing Congress for its failure to reform the laws causing a hemorrhage of lawsuits. The NPEs are effectively doing Congress' job by finding these loopholes;
27.
by law 14y ago
> He's not saying they must conform with these ambiguous rules. But if they don't, it's fair to be contemptuous of them. There is nothing at all unusual about this, there are lots of actions that won't get you in jail but will get you p
28.
by law 14y ago
I agree with your suggestion on the webcams. Another approach is to use machine learning to generate the high-definition image from the mutual information contained in the multiple images by using probabilistic estimators. As an example, [1
29.
by law 14y ago
> Organizations that follow the letter of the law but ignore the principles behind them should inspire our strongest contempt. And who establishes these principles? To suggest that an organization must additionally follow some ambiguous
30.
by law 14y ago
Prior art is usually resolved by the patent office (or the patent trial and appeal board). It's only after they rule against you that you can take it to the federal circuit.

More ›