This article left out a lot of details, but to me it sounds like what happened is that the FBI infiltrated PlayPen under a warrant granting them access to do so. They then used PlayPen's tor node to trace inbound traffic across the tor network and identify the IP addresses of visitors.
I could be wrong, but if that's the case, it sounds to me like the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think of it as sending a letter with no return address. If the letter is addressed to a criminal enterprise, and there is a reasonable expectation that the sender is engaged with said criminal enterprise, to the extent that the FBI can trace that letter back to the sender seems that it would be legal, in my opinion.
However, the TL;DR of this article seems to be that nobody's computer can be expected to be private because everyone's computer can be hacked. I don't think that's what the judge intended with this decision.
Yeah, I get his point that it's the best general purpose rifle out there. If you need to own a gun, it's probably one of your better options.
But I still don't get why you would need a gun. For the most part, we don't need to hunt for our food. We don't need to shoot targets either. Home defense, maybe, but there are other ways to be secure at home without weapons.
I do agree with his point that if you're going to argue against guns, you shouldn't pick and choose categories that are "ok". It's either we ban guns or we continue to live with them in our society.
The language in that description refers to "protected groups". As long as the author is not calculating selection rates for groups of candidates based on some special criteria, such as race, gender, age, etc. he should be ok, right?
I would applaud the author on trying to take a data-driven approach to discover the best hiring signals, but I must offer one major critique of the approach: These data are ultimately not too meaningful unless you correlate actual job performance with interview performance. By the author's own admission, interviews are often faulty. By correlating final-round interview performance with early-round interview performance, you are really only predicting how candidates will perform in the final-round interview, which is not necessarily a good predictor of long-term job performance.
> They proposed that instead of the Van der Waals forces that normally draw water molecules gently together, polywater was composed of molecules locked in place by stronger chemical bonds, somehow catalyzed by the quartz capillary tubes.
Aren't water molecules held together by relatively strong Hydrogen bonds? And if there are stronger bonds in polywater, what are they, then, covalent bonds?
As a web developer, I have to say that this looks amazing! You guys did a great job building this and it looks really polished. Congratulations on launching.
On the other hand, I have to agree with many of the other commenters who say they would prefer to have their files on their file system.
Maybe you could consider integrating with the file system api for platforms that support it? Then you could have the best of both worlds.
It kind of bothers me when people talk about fuel cell vehicles as being "emissions free". Producing the Hydrogen required to run a fuel cell requires either electrolysis of water, or extracting it from natural gas. That's really energy intensive. Either the emissions come out your tailpipe or go out a smokestack. Pick your poison.
There are other interesting fuel cell technologies that use liquids, like methanol, instead of Hydrogen as a fuel source, but even Methanol requires energy to be produced.
I wonder if you could just encode each frame as a gif and send it to the browser as part of an animated gif a la gifsockets (https://github.com/videlalvaro/gifsockets)?
I could be wrong, but if that's the case, it sounds to me like the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think of it as sending a letter with no return address. If the letter is addressed to a criminal enterprise, and there is a reasonable expectation that the sender is engaged with said criminal enterprise, to the extent that the FBI can trace that letter back to the sender seems that it would be legal, in my opinion.
However, the TL;DR of this article seems to be that nobody's computer can be expected to be private because everyone's computer can be hacked. I don't think that's what the judge intended with this decision.