jmholla

I am not a lawyer.

The state has to appoint you one if you don't have one. And given that you have to invoke your exercise of your silence anyway, throw it in there. So something like, "I am invoking my right to silence and require an attorney." ought to do it. Having one ready can definitely be helpful. And while a DA is ideal, any lawyer should do, as they'll either be able to do enough work to get you out of there to find a good attorney, or get a real defense criminal attorney involved. If you do have a prior relationship, keep their card in your wallet and point them to that when you invoke your right to silence.

Sure, not system-wide in rote. It opens with "based at least partially on content of the interactive software application". It's not a far leap from that to screen and audio monitoring. Luckily we don't need to make that leap; the rest of the patent makes explicit demonstration of those capabilities:

* "contextual cues from or based on the interactive software application" [0035]

* "OPTIONALLY in communication with an event detection module" (emphasis mine) [0035]

* "In some embodiments the content management system can receive user inputs from a user interacting with the interactive software application to interpret the content of the interactive software application" [0053]

* Regarding inputs to the event detection systems (which are expressly say don't need to run locally): "video information, audio information, game state data, or other information provided by or from the interactive software application" [0065]

* "FIG. 10 is an embodiment of a frame of video information received from the interactive software application that may be used for identifying events within the user's gameplay." [0073] (Note the patent does not limit itself to video games, just interactive software applications; this is just an example in that context.) [0073]

* "In some embodiments, the video information include user input information." [0092]

And, the design explicitly allows remote processing of this information:

* "The content management system may be stored and/or executed remotely to the client device" [0033]

* "the event detection module may be local to or remote from the content management system." [0036]

You're right, it doesn't include the whole screen and systems audio. Just the parts in the application. But Microsoft just adds this functionality to all software, and then there's no effective difference.

And that is extremely likely to me. And feasible. The patent doesn't say this has to be embedded in applications. Microsoft can implement this on any application. And Microsoft is well beyond the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy concerns.

The difference here is that git objects don't change. When you do a `git gc`, you do get new objects at new inodes, but they don't get written to the existing ones. Try this out and you'll see local git clones do indeed create hardlinks:

``` cd $(mktemp -d) git init test ( cd test; touch README.md; git add README.md; git commit -m "Test"; ) git clone test/.git test_clone find test_clone/.git/objects test/.git/objects -type f -printf "%i\t%p\n" | sort ```

You'll see the same inodes used in both clones.

I do use this, but when I'm collaborating with others, especially a lot of people, I still duplicate it across projects. It pays to be defensive and you can't always get everyone on board with this strategy. Being defensive within your repository prevents issues before they happen.

Colorado has a similar carve-out. I can't comment on Brazil, though.

The write by your shell through the redirect won't get those elevated privileges. You need to use something like tee:

    echo "127.0.0.1    www.reddit.com" | sudo tee -a /etc/hosts

That's a bit difference that Boris's claim that they don't charge for this as a "principle".

Twitter is nothing like it used to be.

Woah! That feels like a huge oversight and like it bypasses standard commit logic. The man pages do say `git history` is experimental. Sounds worth a bug report.

Fun fact: you don't even need the `-n`. `git log -1` does the same thing, for any number.

    -<number>, -n <number>, --max-count=<number>
        Limit the output to <number> commits.

I don't think that logic works. In your vein, if I say " If it gets hotter, I'll want it to be colder" that would imply that if it gets colder I'll want it to be hotter. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case thought.

If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.

I think the rest of your come t stands though. There is difficulty I proving profit and Hollywood accounting can probably change those numbers.

Yea. A lot of them grew wise to this and just hung up on you. Some had no way to get through the tree to a real person. Or, the real person couldn't do anything (e.g., Public Storage).

Don Quixote feels like a bad analogy. These are real dragons. Just, more difficult to fight against.

I've been thinking of setting up a simple server that publishes the public keys at a known endpoints. You point an A record for one of your subdomains at the machine and it can provision a TLS cert. Then you can be reasonably confident your connection hasn't been MitM (assuming your trust your cert provider) when you query for those public keys.

The one presented in the article has fewer moving parts though. I'm also curious what ideas are bouncing around your head if you're willing to share.