| Media Search: |
Recovery Toolbox for PowerPoint 2.2.0.0 Demo
Click this Link For Free Download: http://free-software-programs.info/recovery-toolbox-for-powerpoint-2-2-0-0-demo/ Free off software sales: http://softwaresales.us Effective tool for...
By: williamdoll0
Read the original post:
Recovery Toolbox for PowerPoint 2.2.0.0 Demo - Video
CHRIS STROHM AND JORDAN ROBERTSON
Hackers have shaken the free- software movement that once symbolized the Web's idealism.
Several high-profile attacks in recent months exploited security flaws found in the "open-source" software created by volunteers collaborating online, building off one another's work.
First developed in the 1980s, open-source software has become so pervasive that it now powers global stock exchanges, the International Space Station and, according to researcher International Data, appears on about 95 per cent of computers and servers.
Attacks this year using flaws nicknamed Heartbleed and Shellshock have some programmers suggesting that corporations or even the US government should provide more money or programing help. That idea doesn't go over easily among grass-roots developers who want to remain true to the ideals of a do-it- yourself movement.
"It's going to be a wake-up call for a lot of people to understand why we aren't auditing this software better," said Greg Martin, founder and chief technology officer of Threat Stream, a cybersecurity company based in Redwood City, California. "Everybody's been scratching their heads and saying,'How could we miss this?' "
Open-source advocates say their programming code is more secure than proprietary software because developers are constantly fixing flaws found by users. Critics say the open nature of the software leaves it vulnerable to hackers because the programing flaws are out in the open for all to see.
In either case, some say the fix should come from the companies that build products off the free software.
Technology companies such as Yahoo, Facebook and Google "are saving huge amounts of money using open-source, and they should invest much more money in trying to secure these systems," said Jaime Blasco, director of labs for AlienVault, a San Mateo, California-based security company.
Facebook, based in Menlo Park, California, said in a statement it "is a leading and committed contributor to the open-source community," having started projects to secure Google Android and Apple devices. It pledged US$300,000 over three years to an initiative of the Linux Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that supports open-source use.
See more here:
Hackers shake open source idealism
Omaha Public Schools is preparing to debut it's biggest software upgrade in more than a decade.
A new partnership with Microsoft means 51,000 students and roughly 9,000 staff across more than 80 buildings will use Office 365, and move digital storage from in-house servers to space on Microsoft's cloud.
"It's a challenge but I think it's a great challenge," said OPS Executive Director of Information Management Systems Rob Dickson. He helped coordinate training for dozens of staff members Wednesday at OPS' Teacher Administrative Center.
"It's a huge shift," explained Anthony Clark-Kaczmarek, one of the staff members attending training, praising the new opportunities offered by the software upgrade. "It allows us to have more storage than we've ever been able to before, it allows us to communicate in ways that we haven't been able to communicate before," Clark-Kaczmarek continued.
Dickson says the partnership with Microsoft will cost OPS roughly $300,000 each year. Dickson adds that is less money than the district currently spends on software licensing and server upkeep. As part of the agreement with Microsoft, OPS is subscribing to the software for all staff members and students, instead of licensing software for each individual device.
Also included in the agreement are free downloads of Office 365 for OPS staff and student families. For information on how to access that software, follow this link.
Dickson says the new software will go live on Monday. It will not affect email addresses.
Read more here:
OPS agreement offers free "Office" software for families
You'd think that abused women who fight back would be ideal candidates to invoke the state's "stand your ground" law.
But you would be wrong.
Right now, Whitlee Jones is trying to use the "S.C. Protection of Persons and Property Act" to get immunity from prosecution for killing her boyfriend. Jones says she stabbed Eric Lee in November 2012 when he tried to stop her from leaving her home - just hours after witnesses say they saw him dragging her through their North Charleston neighborhood by the hair.
They were fighting over a cellphone.
Earlier this month, a judge granted Jones immunity from prosecution through the stand your ground law.
But the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office has appealed that ruling, and based on the reaction in some circles you would think they had declared war on all abused women.
That's a little harsh.
Sure, there is reason to be sensitive here, seeing as how South Carolina has a serious problem with violence against women. But it is a vast oversimplification - not to mention wrong - to claim prosecutors (especially Scarlett Wilson, a woman) have something against abused women.
Fact is, the Legislature was about as clear as mud in its rush to pass some flavor-of-the-month law that basically allows you to shoot anyone who looks at you cross-eyed in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
So long as you claim you felt threatened.
Read more here:
Does "stand your ground" apply in all domestic abuse cases?
In November 2012, Whitlee Jones fatally stabbed her partner, Eric Lee. She has testified that she did not mean to kill Lee when she issued the fatal wound, but that she only meant to fend him off while he blocked her from exiting the house with her belongings, attempting to leave him for good. The incident occurred just hours after Lee had punched Jones repeatedly and dragged her down the street by her hair.
According to a lengthy report by the Charleston Post and Courier, neighbors saw Lee rip Jones weave from her head, saw it fall to the pavement across which he yanked her while she screamed. One witness called the police. Officers arrived while Jones hid outside the house; they spoke only with Lee, who said that their altercation never turned physical. The police left, and Jones returned to grab her things and go, forever. She later told police that her partner tried to attack her while she was leaving the house for the second time that night. So, allegedly fearing for her life, she stabbed him.
Now, South Carolina prosecutors are appealing a judges decision to grant Jones immunity in the murder case in accordance with the states Protection of Persons and Property Act otherwise known as its stand your ground law.The expansive measure gives a person the right to use deadly force against a serious threat in his or her own home, or in another place where he [or she] has a right to be. But prosecutors say the 2006 SYG law does not apply to housemates in episodes of domestic violence, as that was not the legislations original purpose.
[The Legislatures] intent was to provide law-abiding citizens greater protections from external threats in the form of intruders and attackers, Assistant Solicitor Culver Kidd, the cases lead prosecutor, told The Post and Courier. We believe that applying the statute so that its reach into our homes and personal relationships is inconsistent with [its] wording and intent.
And unfortunately, Kidd and his colleague in the Jones appeal, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, technically have the law on their side. South Carolinas SYG statute indicates that the presumption of fear necessary for one to take aggressive force does not apply when the person against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling.So, it would seem the law explicitly offers domestic abusers a loophole that gives their victims no legal ground on which to stand. That loophole is one that Judge J.C. Nicholson, who presided over Jones case, refused to allow, arguing that it would create a nonsensical result in which victims can defend themselves from a partners attack outside the home but not inside, where the most dangerous abuse is likely to occur.
Kidd and Wilson are not buying the judges argument, and they shouldnt have to. In fact, there shouldnt be a question of applying stand your ground to Jones case, or to the two other similar cases Kidd is currently prosecuting against domestic violence survivors. These cases and these defendants deserve their own laws distinct ones. The prosecutions explication of South Carolinas SYG law is legitimate, and that poses a much larger problem than getting Whitlee Jones convicted of murder. It typifies the ways in which the law fails to protect victims of domestic violence, and the legally ambiguous area their cases occupy.
There is no room in the SYG law for a presumption of fear in ones own home, of ones own partner. That illustrates a shameful misunderstanding of how domestic violence operates, as well as an even more shameful lack of any path to justice for abuse victims often women who have to fight back to save their own lives. It is not as if these laws or these gaps in laws simply exist out of nowhere; the rules didnt simply come to be. They were created to protect some but not others, but thats something that can be improved. Whats needed isnt a different, clearer understanding of stand your ground or the laws that currently exist, but a different law that deals specifically with self-defense in cases of intimate partner violence.
But acknowledging that need still doesnt excuse the South Carolina prosecutors grave efforts to misapply justice for domestic violence victims, nor the efforts of prosecutors trying similar cases such as Angela Corey of Florida, the attorney who prosecuted George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Corey is currently attempting to put Marissa Alexander, a mother of three who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, in prison for 60 years.Alexander has been refused immunity under the states SYG law twice the first time because the court found that she did not have a reasonable fear for her life, and the second because the judge refused to retroactively apply changes to the law that made provisions for warning shots. She did not injure anyone and, at the time of the incident, had a protective order against her partner, who previously admitted under oath to beating her.
As my colleague Brittney Cooper has written before, Alexanders case and now Jones case too would play out differently if we lived in a world where womens lives mattered. Then, there would be laws that afford domestic violence victims the understanding, protection and justice they deserve when they are forced to live and defend themselves in fear. Or, at the very least, stand your ground laws would apply not only to hypothetical external threats, but to people who have their backs against the wall in their own homes no matter what the situation even if they were pushed there by their own partners.
But thats not the world we live in. Instead, we live in a world where stand your ground laws are written to exclude violence against women when it occurs in their homes or at the hands of their partners; where in practice the measures are invoked to protect those most likely to commit abuse. They dictate what or whom can be reasonably seen as a threat, and who has the right to fear for their lives. They say that a woman with a weapon fighting back against the man who abuses her is not a victim, but a criminal.
View post:
Stand whose ground? How a criminal loophole gives domestic abusers all the rights