hrehhf

> Should anyone be able to show up to an airport, pay for a ticket and board a flight anonymously?

Yes.

Have you noticed that Starbucks has wifi sponsored from Google? Considering that Google tracks everything else, it is reasonable to assume they track MAC addresses at nearly every Starbucks, too. It has been reported that shopping centers do this as well. You do not have to actually be connected to their SSID either because your MAC address will be broadcast with any frames transmitted.

To be honest, it is more likely that the prosecutor is the one who has ulterior motives, such as trying to get revenge on behalf of one of the prosecutor's friends/family. Or even just for personal career advancement.

Going to an Ivy League school does not help the student earn more money compared to going to a non-Ivy, except for students from certain disadvantaged backgrounds.

"students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads."

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2...

> do not allow you to use removable storage for that purpose

You are complaining about Samsung's hardware being inexcusable, yet you consider an unnecessary software restriction to be acceptable? I was not aware that Amazon Instant Video, Netflix and Spotify had such restrictions but I do consider that restriction to be inexcusable and would use other software instead.

I timed it and it took about 25 seconds to go from the Chase login prompt to the "Add authorized user" page where you can get another credit card added to an existing account. So, I admit its not quite as fast as you would like. There is a caveat if you pay an annual fee: you pay the fee for each card. My accounts have no annual fee.

I also checked US Bank and American Express and you are correct, the process is not smooth at all. US Bank wants me to print, sign, and mail it! American Express wants to verify identity of the additional user using an SSN. That makes no sense of course, because they might not even have an SSN and the main account holder is still contractually obliged to pay the account balance.

But it is that simple. In my case, I got a card for a family member. But there is no verification done so you can literally get a card with any name on it. It is still tied to your identity through the bank.

While you make a fair point, he does not have schizophrenia. He has dissociative identity disorder (also known as multiple personalities).

Isn't it reasonable to want a taxi service that doesn't track its customers beyond 1 single ride? For example, a regular taxi paid with cash?

I agree with your comments about grsecurity making the kernel much more secure. However your comments about remote exploits and Qubes are somewhat contradictory. You claim that a remote kernel exploit is very rare/difficult, therefore the Qubes NetVM must be very difficult to attack because it runs no applications or services. It functions as a router and does essentially nothing else. By your own argument it would be very difficult to attack the NetVM. It is only the AppVMs or any others which run applications that are vulnerable, and if these are attacked, Qubes's design will likely prevent a permanent backdoor from being installed in that VM and make it difficult for the attacker to gain access to any of the other AppVMs.

I still think Subgraph looks promising and I look forward to your future work.

Sovereign immunity does not protect innocents. When officials have immunity, they target vulnerable people for prosecution and imprisonment, even if those targeted are innocents. In general, police and prosecutors do not care whether a person is actually innocent, they care only if they can convince a judge/jury to imprison the person. This is the opposite of protection innocents. Over time, "successful" police/prosecutors are the ones who imprison the most people, pushing out those who actually try not to imprison innocent people.

On the other hand, if officials did not have immunity and were held accountable for abusing the law, the incentives would be properly aligned.

The problem of 'frivolous' or 'retaliatory' lawsuits is a red herring. Sometimes the plaintiff might not have enough evidence to succeed in court but that is not frivolous, its simply insufficient. This is mainly an excuse people used to justify mass incarceration, probably to protect their conscience from making them feel guilty about what is actually done by their government. Perhaps, to appease those of your persuasion, there could be a government fund used to defend a lawsuit for the first $X to dis-incentivize retaliatory lawsuits.

In a twisted sort of way, a person could destroy trust that paying the ransom will actually get your data back. Someone could create ransomware that will never decrypt, even after the ransom is paid. Once the victims know the dishonest ransomware is out there, that may ruin the revenue towards the "honest" ransomware.

Why do you keep bringing up guns in comparison to drugs? Millions of Americans say yes to legal gun ownership; similarly millions say yes to legal drug ownership and use. That is a consistent attitude towards personal responsibility.

Debian has a command-line tool 'pdftotext' which extracts the text from a PDF. It is not OCR, it pulls the characters from the file itself. Its in the package called poppler-utils.

On my system, I can run this:

  # echo 100 > /sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight/brightness

This sets the backlight brightness. I'm not sure what the units are, but it can go all the way to 0. If I shine a very bright light at the screen (like sunlight), it is readable at 0.

"collect more evidence" means they take your hardware or other property that they want and you will not get it back for many years. Even if there is no criminal charge. If its computer hardware that was taken, it will be obsolete by the time you get it back.

In my experience, it is more typical to use percent change or relative change in the physical sciences and this is how I was taught. Just to be clear, if you have values t1 and t2, the relative change is (t1-t2)/t1. There is a 1 to 1 correspondence with what you described which is t2/t1.

I think teej explained it well. If I say "the new value is +20% or -20%", it is immediately obvious those have the same magnitude and opposite direction. But, for some people, when I say "the new value is 120% or 80% of the old value", it is not immediately obvious that they have the same magnitude. It requires a small extra step for the reader to realize that this means the same amount of relative change.

With 2 cores (4 logical) 58.9% decrease in time for the 680 MB file a.txt:

# time pigz -c /tmp/a.txt > /dev/null

real 0m19.352s user 1m16.148s sys 0m0.344s

# time gzip -c /tmp/a.txt > /dev/null

real 0m47.093s user 0m46.940s sys 0m0.104s

I tested it on a 680 MB of text. gzip compresses to 246.0 MB. pigz compresses to 245.5 MB. I see similar percent change on a 3.8 MB text file. So they are approximately equivalent.

> $90,000 starting salary for a javascript bootcamp grad

That is not a realistic expectation in Seattle.

> If this guy is innocent, his life is ruined now. And we've seen this pattern elsewhere, outside of tech; teenagers/adults falsely accused of rape or worse. People pissing behind a bar with a permanent contextless "sex offender" mark on their record. Etc. Lives ruined - innocent people escaping justice.

What exactly do you even mean by "his life is ruined"? There are no criminal charges. No pre-trial detention. No trial. No prison sentence. This is a loooong way from his life being ruined. In all likelihood he will move on with his life, with no connection to Tor project.

If I would rather not be tracked and profiled by these companies, which service would you suggest? In the terms of service of iTunes, Play store, and Amazon it appears those three do track and profile users. Is it too much to ask? How much more would digital copies cost for the 'privilege' of not being tracked and profiled?

And the UK is occupying another EU member's land, northern Ireland. The UK has their reasons as does Turkey.

Then logically texting must also be made illegal at all times. These are not simple accidents, these are people texting, driving and killing people, and its happening a LOT more frequently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/06/tennessee-bus-drive...

http://www.thedailyjournal.com/story/news/2016/07/11/driver-...

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/boone-county/2015...

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/dangers-texting-while-d...

Notice how that link is not specific about what counts as upper class and middle class.

It is not the case that people in the "lower" classes decided not to get any skills. It is that the economy changes over time and their skills are no longer compensated well and, in general, US society is not good at accommodating people to change their skill-sets to move into a new career. You might have anecdotes about people who made such a career change, but for society as a whole, it is too difficult.

I think this is a mostly a false dilemma. It makes most sense that if a collision is unavoidable, brake hard to minimize overall damage/injury. There is no reason a computer-driven car should ever unavoidably find pedestrians in its path except when the pedestrians recklessly got into the car's path. Therefore, why inflict injury to the innocent passengers to save pedestrians who are at fault? It seems like braking and hoping for the best is the best solution, for human drivers as well as computers.

I think that you are saying you need a salesperson, someone who sells your services to potential clients. That is not the same as a recruiter. A recruiter is paid by a company to find people to hire, whereas you pay a salesperson to find people to pay you.

Are you sure you looked at the table? Chemistry and Mathematics are in the upper half of the table, i.e. higher earnings.

Is it actually illegal to sell information that a particular bug exists and can be exploited? What if it is sold to the company which owns the software? What if it is sold to one's own government?

Actually https authentication does work like ssh (at least in Mozilla Firefox), just with the extra CA-signature option. You are warned that the certificate is not signed by CA nor been whitelisted yet. So, you can whitelist it and then all future connections can be authenticated just fine.