Entirely likely, though possibly there are potentially flaws that could allow people to identify it through other means.
I've never used TOR so I didn't realise that this would apply (and it makes perfect sense it would work that way).
It may be that whoever requested the data knows as little about it as I do (or more likely, they know a lot more about what they want and my speculation is completely wrong).
It's interesting, the article discusses that the request is for a relatively short period of time (35 minutes) - however for a popular website that could still be thousands of viewers.
It suggests that there's something they're specifically looking to match against - but if that was the case, I would think that specific IP addresses could be provided in the request - e.g. Did any one of these 10 IP addresses view the article in the time period. Much more specific and likely easier to justify.
I'd rampantly speculate that perhaps that time matches to the link being posted in a pedophilia related forum (with the forum behind TOR) - and the FBI would like to get a list of who might have followed it there.
The although both words have the same last two letters - "le", the third last letters are different. This produces a different syllable when pronounced.
A man smuggled half a tonne of $2 coins out of the Royal Australian Mint in his boots and lunch box and kept notes of when he exchanged the money, a court has been told.
This is interesting, particularly in light of skissane comments about melatonin being prescription only.
Here in Australia, you can buy Asthma Inhalers "over the counter" (no prespcription) from pharmacies (Salbutamol). They sometimes do ask if you're seeing a doctor for your asthma, but that's about it. (I take a regular treatment for it)
I think an interesting variation on this is that even if a safety system is not required by law, but is available - then disabling could constitute criminal negligence. Consider what happens if safety equipment on industrial equipment is disabled and injuries result. I'm fairly sure that criminal charges could result for whoever disabled the safety mechanisms (though the there are likely differences between workplace safety criminal law and road safety).
Keep in mind that it was also used as a significant contributing factor to replace a lot of major legacy IT systems (especially accounting systems) at big organisations (a lot of SAP rollouts in the late 90s had Y2K as part of the cost justifications).
The company I worked for ran a Y2K Remediation "Factory" for mainframe software - going through and change to 4 digits, checking for leap year issues, confirming various calculations still worked.
I worked on a full system replacement that was partially justified on the basis of (roughly) we can spend 0.3x and do y2k patches, or spend X and get a new system using more recent technologies and UIs.
There were still problems, but they were generally in less critical systems as likely major systems had been tested, and were remediated or replaced.
Keep in mind that there was often much more processing that occurred on desktop computers (traditional fat client) - so lots of effort was also expended on check desktop date rollover behaviour. Once place I worked at had to manually run test software on every computer they had (10's of thousands) because it needed reboots and remote management was more primitive (and less adopted) at the time.
I also wonder if encouraging this form of meetings could be viewed as discriminatory if you have employees who have physical disabilities that might make walking unpleasant or slow.
It's interesting that the notes regarding transmission efficiency are not present in the similar speach given on the 4th of March (as opposed to the article link, which is the 3rd of March).
I'm not sure what to make of it. It might be pure paranoia on my part - but it is an interesting change in the welcome statements that are otherwise generally similar.
This makes me think of an interesting point around the potential virus outbreak in the US.
If there is a non-trivial outbreak, then could it effectively be (for the US), not just a mass virus management exercise - but be followed by a mass-bankrupting due to medical expenses (which are already a big deal just for "normal" life events)
Although there are a number of socially related reasons - there are likely some significant immediate commercial reasons to do so.
If you're in a service related industry - do you want staff coming to work if they are (or recently) suffering from digestive illnesses? How would an outbreak of people getting sick after being at your facility look? It could potentially result in very very bad publicity - to the point of destroying your business.
If you're running a smaller business / facility - do you want an employee coming in and spreading the illness to your other workers in the early stages of being sick (and then later taking time off)? This could result in your business lacking sufficient staff to open if you can't use labor hire staff.
The reason why it might be good for businesses to provide an incentive (like sick pay) not to work when sick is that it reduces the risk of negative outcomes to the business.
Quite some time ago, I needed to do a big cleanup of email aliases (I have 500+) and various
My approach was to use IMAP integration with my provider to copy all the emails down to my laptop.
I then used VBA in Outlook to create a list of source email addresses and counts - then I could update places using those emails.
In your case, i'd do something similar.
Analyse your existing emails to get a list of emails by source address (or domain).
Use that list to figure out what places you need to get updated.
Then (per Sydney1's suggestion) - forward old emails to the new address. Preferably tag it somehow so you know that it means there are other places that need to be updated.
I'm not from the USA - however most communication software implementation are commercial systems - and don't have the same free speech constraints.
There's already ample historic precedence for requiring suppliers of goods and services to include side door access for law enforcement.
CALEA comes to mind - it requires communications system providers to include third party listening capabilities.
There are probably (not a lawyer) arguments that could be made that software is speech - and the difference between an "Information Service" vs "Communication Service".
Also, I do wonder how OSS communications software (XMMP etc) might differ under some aspects against commercial software - like Cisco Jabber (which is also XMMP).
Or OSS software written by a private company/startup. Or someone wanting to move their hobby OSS software into a startup.
Thinking bit more generically, you might be really thinking about concrete with air pockets (though ensuring they're spherical might make for excellent load distribution through the side walls). There are already concrete variants called Aerated Concrete and Foam Concrete where bubbles are formed inside the concrete, resulting in a lighter product, though with different structural properties.
While an individual vehicle is trivially convertible to natural gas - modifying enough of a countries fleet to make a measurable difference fast enough is a completely different matter. It is unlikely that more than a trivial fraction of a total nations vehicles could be converted in a single year unless a significant amount of contingency (training, facilities and parts) is established.
What's interesting is that there's already a similar internationally agreed framework for how to approach this - shipping - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_... - These would probably be a good place to start considering a framework for satellite orbit adjustments. However, despite this framework, it still happens - and I can see the issue of risk evaluation being a big one - what if one entity thinks a 1/1000 risk is acceptable for their cheap satellite vs the other satellite wanting 1/1000000?
That sounds like an excellent approach. If a consumer chooses "always 200 on error", how do you return the API response status? HTTP Response Header or in a custom value in the response body?
Thankyou for the link - it's quite interesting. Here's the section:
In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that courts later tasked with determining whether an actor is a “seller” should consider whether the following four factors apply:
(1) Whether the actor is the “only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress”;
(2) Whether “imposition of strict liability upon the [actor] serves as an incentive to safety”;
(3) Whether the actor is “in a better position than the consumer to prevent the circulation of defective products”; and
(4) Whether “[t]he [actor] can distribute the cost of compensating for injuries resulting from defects by charging for it in his business, i.e., by adjustment of the rental terms.”
I believe the general thought is that at a very simple level, operating as a company provides for a number of protections for the owners/operators. At a societal level, the broad justification for allowing unnatural beings with those benefits is that it still provides a net benefit to society through things like employment opportunities,
taxes and the encouragement of economic activity. If the concept of a company no longer provides any non-trivial benefit to society (for example, no jobs or taxes), why should society collectively provide laws that allow them in the first place?
I've never used TOR so I didn't realise that this would apply (and it makes perfect sense it would work that way).
It may be that whoever requested the data knows as little about it as I do (or more likely, they know a lot more about what they want and my speculation is completely wrong).