edwhitesell

Well, Teump can't block someone because it's been defined his Twitter account is official policy of the President. The same would be true for any government official who's account is defined as such.

If it were a personal account, with personal views being posted, blocking would be fine. You could probably even make your account private and only allow approved followers. But, that's not the case here.

I think there are some US states where housing rental/lease agreements are regulated to be shorter/simpler. I want to say our lease in Washington was only 3 or 4 pages. Whereas, I recall other places have been in the dozens of pages.

Of course, I'm one of the minority who reads every page of those...and everything singed when buying a house. Luckily, most title companies will supply copies ahead of time.

I had the exact same thought of my now 6 year old who always has the window seat when we fly.

Here's to hoping being strapped into a carseat would offer enough protection for such a tragic and rare event.

It's similar to the activities of most anti-virus/malware agents on computers. Of course, one could argue those cases are focused much more on the security aspects, rather than Facebook's revenue-generating motives to see what you do for advertising purposes.

1.1.1.1 is used by a LOT of Wifi authentication systems, and has been going back to 2000 or so.

I don't see why the merchant would have to do anything. If the card/bank allows the transaction, because they recognize the merchant using the "old" card info it'll go through.

Some (most) CCs will allow prior recurring charges to continue with an old/lost/stolen CC number for some period of time (potentially until the expiration date) so you can avoid that headache.

In the case of my AmEx, I have some monthly charges still using an old number from 3 years and 2 stolen cards ago. Discover used to offer this too, though I don't know if they currently do.

Great article. Could we get [2008] added to the title please?

After recently getting a cancer diagnosis and going through surgery and chemotherapy, the best advice I can give is: ask lots of questions and you are your own best advocate.

As with any profession, there are some great doctors who are truly looking out for your best interests and will pursue any direction you want. There are others who simply want to "follow the standard practice", even if what they know as "standard" is 35 years old. There are others who just want to get through as many procedures as possible and "see what sticks" when it comes to a diagnosis.

Asking questions helps you better understand which of these you're working with, and what actions you need to take on your own.

Finally, EMR sounds great, but in my experience it just doesn't work. Find a PCP who is part of a hospital system with specialists using the same computer system. This means they can all see each other's notes & test results. A lot of the time, even doctors in the same building are basically "private practice", or part of some other partnership that is not part of the hospital you are at.

I'm IPv4 only at the moment, though I have sometimes seen both in various markets across the US.

Thanks for this! It's been one of the missing pieces since 57 was released and the old addon that provided this functionality stopped working.

Our pediatrician recommended this when treating a fever. Alternate Tylenol and Motrin, then you can dose every 3 hours instead of every 4.

I did on first attempt to load it, then it worked on an immediate refresh. Probably a cold cache or something.

On a similar note, I thought it was this [1] blink.

[1] https://blink1.thingm.com/

While I have no law enforcement, or "lawyer-like" experience, I've been spending a fair amount of time with my local PD lately. A good friend is an assistant chief and I sometimes sit on the applicant Oral Board (the in-person interview board for people applying to be Officers). I'd sum up my comments in a couple of items:

- Always be polite. Most officers aren't jerks; but some are, and those are will look for ways to get you in trouble just because you are acting like a jerk.

- Unless you've been doing something wrong, or give them a reason to be suspicious (not answering questions is a GIANT red flag) officers almost always have good intentions. 99% of the time have better things to do than try to get someone in trouble who isn't already acting suspicious.

- If you choose to answer questions (and you should answer basic stuff IMHO), always tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie it makes everything about your interaction 100-times more difficult.

- If you choose not to answer any questions, for whatever reason, you should get to know your local/state laws regarding the things you MUST provide to officers when asked. Usually Identification is on that list, and choosing not to provide it means they can detain you.

- "Policing" has been changing dramatically the last 10 years. Most agencies are trying to use community outreach to improve relations, and in some cases fix their bad reputations. Some aren't, it's valuable to know that going into a situation, if possible.

Once again, this is why I've blocked javascript for years. Browsers really need to start offering this without add-ons or extensions.

I beleive it's part of the NPRM [0] issued in May.

[0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.p...

This is the kind of stuff that really bothers me about government. Governments should, IMHO, work for the people and their best interests. This seems clearly about who's lobbying the most.

Contrary to some state-level efforts and laws; companies are not people.

Seems like it's only the Logitech Link product, not all Harmony remotes.

I've been buying used/refurbished 880 remotes online for the last few years. I still think it's the best IR remote ever made.

HTTP _does_ make that distinction, as does just about everything else (off the top of my head, the only thing I could think of that may not was NTP). My point was the client has to request something, that's a search in this context.

> Say Bob tells me to connect to his ftp server and gives me a different IP. I go into my client, type the IP, and hit connect. I have a directory listing of all the filez now. A crime? You've gotta be kidding.

Say Bob gives you the address to his house and says "Open the gate and go in the back yard. My grill is in the corner, you can have it". Unfortunately, you transposed the numbers and took someone else's grill. Is that not trespassing and stealing?

I don't disagree with you that the prosecution in this case probably should not happen, but it's not nearly as simple as making a blanket statement that "Whoops! I connected to the wrong server." is enough to make an act no longer illegal.

As @poorrights commented, a lot of it has to do with intent as well.

> Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all;

That's my point and counter-argument to the item I quoted; Just because something is visible, or behind an unlocked door, it is NOT available for someone to search through it.

> The law needs to be at the same standard as real life.

Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences.

> For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant.

The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to your house and go through all of your things just because you left the door unlocked.

> If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it.

I don't think anyone here is saying it is. The argument is it's illegal to search through the data made available by that service without permission.

> It's like an open door that throws a copy of it's contents at anyone that finds it.

It's really not. Here's an exercise: Name a protocol used on the Internet that does NOT make a distinction between connecting and the client requesting information.

(replying to myself)

After walking away from this I thought of an analogy to fit the other side: Attractive Nuisance

Maybe a security researcher/group/company could sue on behalf of customers affected by an open FTP server because it's an "Attractive Nuisance" on the Internet. Affecting a company's bottom-line is about the only way to get some to take notice.

Some graphical FTP clients might download a list of files, but certainly not all. It's not a standard part of the protocol to immediately execute 'LIST'.

You may have fat fingered a URL, but your browser still asked for it and any content located there.

I don't agree with prosecution on things like this, but the reality is the best analogies are still doors and locks: My front door is connected to a walkway, which is connected to the public sidewalk. You may see my door is open and unlocked, but you're still trespassing if you walk in. If you did, I may decide not to press charges, but that's my choice. And I'd be mad as hell at anyone who created a law that said I couldn't just because my door is open.

I think the best solution is for people to treat others with a little more goodwill, and find other ways to make society less litigious overall. Unfortunately, corporations drive a lot of that because a corporation's only goal is to make money. People, however, can make different choices.

This is a configurable option in nginx. You can have it wait until the entire request is recevied before passing to the upstream (backend) or have it stream as data arrives. I seem to recall there is still a manageable buffer when streaming too, though it's been a few years since I looked at that in detail.

I'm on Ting, CDMA (Sprint) and neither link worked. Not found errors.

A lot of WiFi hotspot gear has built-in functionality to intercept/redirect DNS traffic. Or, as they are routers already, the ability to do it with firewall rules and such.

We've talked about the risks of these kinds of MitM attacks for years. The good news is, the large players have vested interest to keep their networks secure.

> For example, if you have 2 instances of Caddy in production and 3 web developers using Caddy locally to build your website, that's 5 instances. (A single developer who starts multiple instances of Caddy temporarily in local dev can still just count as 1.) If you also spin up a maximum of 3 containers at a time with Caddy binaries inside it, that's a total of 8 instances.

This reminds me of Microsoft’s CAL licensing scheme(s). Those were ALWAYS confusing, and [in my experience] rarely followed correctly.

I'd wager this won't generate any meaningful revenue, but may open doors for legal action of people in violation. Hopefully that's not the goal.

This matches my experience as well. However, we live in a 15+ year old neighborhood.

It's been slighly annoying when they ring the doorbell to deliver at 9-10pm. The most surprising part of this has been looking out and seeing the whole family (including small children) in the vehicle.

I don't see any if this not being easily solved by the traditional model of using authorize and capture with external payment processors.

It's been a while since I've worked on such a system, so I suppose it's possible newer processors implement things differently. However, that model was solid because you always knew the state of the charge in your system and finding the state in the processor's system was pretty easy too (in the case of communication errors).

Also, authorize can be run multiple times. Sure, you may place a hold on some extra amount in the customer's account, but it falls off after a few days (and I believe you could release it too, if a different authorize transaction was captured).

This seems like an overly conlmplex solution to a problem that's been solved for years.

Edit: fixed typo.