Why not? Because containers of liquid are limited to 3oz at security checkpoints. And a 750ml bottle is way over the limit.

Also Chuck is Charles Shaw, a cheap wine sold at Trader Joes. One step above fortified wine.

So I could just stroll up to the gate with a bottle of three buck chuck in my carry on?

TSA confiscates your drinks, while the airline sells you drinks at insane margins. More profits for airlines.

Frequently that is exactly what slashdotters are prone to doing. Slashdot has turned too much into an echo chamber. And posts that go against the hive mind quickly get buried under commenters complaining that it was posted in the first place. "Stuff that matters, durh durh."

If you want intelligent discussion, you need some form of moderation. Posts that are uninformed, off topic, spam, or just plain trolling can easily derail a discussion. Moderation needs a light touch, but it's still invaluable.

I use the chip at trader joes. It does seem like most of the time I'm just swiping the card. Of course people are resistant to change and are going to complain. Most of them will get used to it.

I just wonder how much this will actually help with reducing fraud. EMV prevents the card it self from being cloned. How does it prevent someone for hacking the store and using the information to purchase something online?

More specifically, a substance meant to poison insects, poisons insects.

The whole point of full disk encryption is to protect against someone who has physical access to the disk. In case it gets stolen, thrown in the trash, or sold. It does nothing against remote attacks.

Now my understanding is that the advantage self-encrypting disks is that you don't have the overhead incurred by software encryption.

Bad forensics effects cases other than drug cases. So no, that does not solve the problem.

The easiest way would be to look at your e-mail and see who is sending you PGP encrypted e-mails.

Not to mention that it's so easy to defeat (plaincloths officer) that no person in their right mind would use the technology to fool police.

I think the prosecution in this case could request an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines because the pending charges mean that his criminal record inadequately shows the seriousness of his past behavior. What I'm saying is that there are rules and formulas that the judge is supposed to follow.

There are federal sentencing guidelines. There are criteria for things like past offenses, cooperation with the investigation, among other things. The judge is not bound to strictly follow them, but if the judge just hands out maximum sentences with little explanation, that could be grounds for an appellate court to reduce the sentence. Also, I am not a lawyer either.

When I was using a feature phone like a nokia 6555, the mobile version was a nice thing to have. But has anyone actually used a feature phone in the last 5 years? Most people either want a basic "dumb" phone, or a smart phone, with little demand in between the 2.

Firefox was supposed to be just a browser. Has Mozilla forgotten why Firefox was created in the first place?

Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.