As an alternative to khellendros1984's answer, if you're rooted, xhangouts has this option:

http://repo.xposed.info/module...

In California, for example, as many as 45 percent of the more than 8 million cell phone calls to 911 each year are for non-emergencies, officials said; in Sacramento, it could be as high as 80 percent. Those calls block the lines for callers who really need urgent help

Source

But national statistics say otherwise. One recent survey reported that 25 percent of all 911 calls are pranks, creating a dilemma for emergency agencies. And in 2003, another national study found that 70 percent of all cell phone calls to 911 are dialed inadvertently.

Source

Estimates suggest 20% of 911 calls are non-emergencies

Source

So, we've got 45%, 80%, 70% or 20% non-emergencies; and 25% fraudulent. Somehow, I don't have a lot of faith in these numbers.

Identity fraud, or more simply, bank fraud.

We don't want American spy agencies listening to our https traffic either. Just because Alice is shooting at me, it doesn't suddenly make it OK for Bob to stab me too.

This is an attack against the SSL trust model. A CA knowingly created a rogue certificate for malicious purposes. This wasn't an accident. A Diginotar type response would not be inappropriate.

To me, I unthinkingly assumed it affected how the body armor lay against the body, therefore the side was slightly more open. Now I am not so sure.

I see the "close access work" as a bit of a red herring, and the "ethically worse position" is the real story. Mass surveillance is just too nice to give up. So, I predict that we will be seeing government malware that infects large numbers of computers in order to attempt to maintain the status quo.

I'm saying that it's a controversial subject, and as such, anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt.

I was not stating my opinion, because I hadn't seen enough of both sides to develop one yet. One side seems normal mixed with a few crazies, and the other seems all crazy. I was looking for the normals on the other side in order to see what their argument was, but have yet to find them. From what I've read here, I think I'm finally starting to understand that they are, in fact, all crazy, and that they have no real disagreement other than that they find the very existence of the first group repugnant for no readily apparent reason, and that they're projecting their thoughts onto the first group.

I apologize for attempting to define "SJW". I thought you legitimately didn't know how the term was being used, and like I said, I now understand your side of this disagreement.

FYI, Wikipedia generally isn't the best reference for controversial subjects.

I see the term SJW being used as a pejorative against a group which includes some but not all feminists. In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.

It would need to be a full on classification system, similar to how Netflix does ratings. That is, it would have to put both the reviewer and the review reader into groups, and weigh the rating based on the reviewer's similarity to the reader.

"People with similar ratings to yours gave this restaurant 2 stars, while the general public gave it 4 stars."

The problem with this is that you would need a whole lot more ratings in order to get any kind of reliability.

Also, due to the new ICANN email verification requirement, there is going to be an increase in the number of "parked" domains.

First 6 are non-secret, last 4 are non-secret. And one additional digit is a checksum, therefore non-secret. So, a credit card has 5 digits of secrecy.

I don't know about anybody else, but the reason I don't find Netflix DRM unpalatable is because I didn't purchase the content. The "rental" is very explicit in the agreement between the Netflix and the consumer. If Netflix were to start to sell movies, I would find that objectionable. I do find Steam objectionable, as well as most DRM.

Also, you are then susceptible to the very same MITM attacks by the VPN provider. (Although they do have an incentive to remain honest.)

The primary development goal of Tor is to prevent the request from being traced back to the requester. (As a secondary effect, it also bypasses various national/regional content blocking schemes.) Malicious exit relays are detrimental, but in theory the user should be aware of the trust issues involved. I would label this as a user education issue.

The major points being:

• If your traffic is on the Internet, unless it is encrypted (such as by SSL), it can be passively monitored with only moderate effort.
• If you are using Tor to reach the Internet, your traffic can't be traced back to you, but it still goes out over the Internet; see the previous point for more details. Tor can do nothing once the traffic is back on the Internet.
• Attacks such as sslstrip exist. Be on guard against them.

But hey, at least Win8 beat Congress!