|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
.... It syncs up across all those devices because I store the
keychain in the cloud on Dropbox. Update a password on my phone, and the file is
saved on Dropbox, where my computer will pull it down later, and vice
versa....
Previously, when I had the option for ease-of-use versus
security, I always went the easy route....
....I take those
steps now. But I also know that no matter what security measures I take,
they can all be undone by factors beyond my control.
[PJ: Is it wise to
tell the world where you keep your passwords/keychains?]
I think
that he was saying that was how he used to do it before he got hacked, and that
he no longer does that now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
Very nice turn-of-phrase, in my opinion:
"Companies seem to be bent on
inventing patents rather than patenting inventions."
-- Susan P.
Crawford
In Apple v.
Samsung Patent Case, Expect Nobody to Win [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
The example given:
Does law prohibiting an ambulance from entering a park apply
when it enters to save a life apply to the ambulance? Isn't there a principal
of law that sets aside such restrictions when life is at stake? I do not
believe that a law prohibiting vehicles from entering a park is applicable to
any vehicle, gov or otherwise, that enters the restricted area when there is
reason to believe that a life in in jeopardy and there is no practical
alternative to preserving it. The sanctity of life takes precedence. If the
only way for a life to be saved is to cross a line then you cross it. Any
reasonable jury would agree with you.
It does not matter if the writers of the
ordinance intended to include emergency vehicles or not or if that was simply
overlooked. Our impulses to protect each other mean that there are situations
when we can not obey such laws. In fact, taking the time to consider such laws
in the face of a dire emergency would be an indication of madness. Could you be
convicted for a violation of a mere ordinance when you are compelled to act by
nature as any ordinary man would? I wouldn't convict and neither would any
rational person.
There are circumstance when doing the right thing means going
against some ordinance. I hope you do the right thing. You may have to justify
yourself afterwards but that is better than doing nothing and trying to live
with worse consequences later.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|