| Media Search: |
The war hawks squawk; Cliven Bundy, cognitive dissonance, stupid dupes
Please visit my website: http://www.thestenchoftruth.com Get linked to my blogs, social networking sites and also to my radio show. The radio show airs live Fridays from 7 to 9 PM Eastern time...
By: Ted Torbich
The rest is here:
The war hawks squawk; Cliven Bundy, cognitive dissonance, stupid dupes - Video
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Maybe China was the canary in the coal mine.
Social networking high fliers Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR), LinkedIn (LNKD) and Yelp (YELP) each tumbled 4% or more by 2 p.m. after rising early Monday morning. The moves followed a sharp drop in shares of Chinese Internet companies such as Baidu (BIDU), Sohu.com (SOHU) and Youku (YOKU).
$DIA $SPY $QQQ $IWM from green to red. #Marketintrouble -- Le$ (@lcc007) Apr. 28 at 01:25 PM
At first, the selloff in the Chinese Internet sector seemed a contained reaction to disappointing earnings from Sohu.com and the Chinese government's decision to halt online streaming of popular American television shows. But as the selling spread, it became clear that investor concerns about Internet company valuations extend beyond firms based in Beijing.
Go here to read the rest:
Is This Social Networking Beatdown Proof of a Tech Bubble?: StockTwits
WASHINGTON, April 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases regarding whether police searches of cellphones should require a warrant to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement and the government from engaging in "unreasonable searches and seizures" but the Justice Department is trying to exploit an old loophole that allows a warrantless search to prevent the destruction of evidence.
The cases are among several that have tested the Constitution in the digital age. The first case, which is being heard on Tuesday, is Riley v. California. When David L. Riley was pulled over for expired registration in San Diego in 2009, police found guns in his vehicle and searched his smartphone, which contained evidence linking him to a street gang. He was arrested and convicted for attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
In its Supreme Court brief, California claims information on cellphones "is not different in kind from wallets, address books, personal papers and other items that have long been subject to examination."
However, many argue now that smartphones carry troves of personal data including communications, banking information, health information and access to a person's social media, it needs to be protected as that information would under the Fourth Amendment.
The original judge in the second case the court will hear, United States v. Wurie, agreed with that sentiment when he threw out the evidence collected from Brima Wurie's cellphone after his call logs led to an arrest on drug and gun charges.
"Today, many Americans store their most personal papers and effects in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person," Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote for a divided three-judge panel.
Riley's lawyers say the solution to the police's problem is as simple as requiring them to put the phone in airplane mode while they wait for a warrant or to disrupt the signal with Faraday bags to prevent wiping.
Read more:
Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones
Others say there must be a different standard because of the sheer amount of data on and available through cellphones. In February, for instance, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suppressed evidence found on the phone of a high school student who was arrested on charges of causing a disturbance on a school bus. "Searching a person's cellphone," the court said, "is like searching his home desk, computer, bank vault and medicine cabinet all at once."
The justices are not always savvy about technology. At last week's argument over whether an Internet streaming service is lawful, Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to think HBO is a broadcast rather than a cable channel.
Read More IRS to face the Supreme Court over summons power
But the justices can be sensitive to the implications of new technology for privacy rights, especially their own. Things did not go well for the Justice Department after one of its lawyers said at a 2011 argument that the F.B.I. was free to place GPS devices on the justices' cars. The government lost the case, against a drug dealer it had tracked for a month, by a 9-to-0 vote.
Similarly, in 2001, the court limited the use of thermal-imaging devices to peer into homes. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said, "It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology."
The problem in the thermal-imaging case, he wrote, was that the devices could detect not only heat lamps used to grow marijuana but also "at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath."
Searches of phones may give rise to a similar protective reaction. "It's a technology that all the justices will understand," Professor Kerr said. "They all have cellphones."
But they may not know how much information such phones can contain, including call records, messages, Internet browsing records, calendars, books, diaries, photographs and videos, to say nothing of applications that connect to financial, medical and travel records.
Adam M. Gershowitz, a professor at William & Mary Law School, noted that his iPhone tracked and stored his movements. "I just looked," he said, "and my phone shows that I arrived at work yesterday at 8:56 a.m." It also showed where and when he had lunch.
The first case to be argued Tuesday, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in 2009 in San Diego for having an expired registration. The police found loaded guns in his car and, on inspecting Mr. Riley's smartphone, entries they associated with a street gang.
Read more from the original source:
Court may let cops search smartphones
Decision Table Testing Explained with Examples - Software Testing Tutorial
In this video, we understand a decision table. A decision table is a table of all possible conditions and corresponding actions. It is used to show complicated logic without forgetting any...
By: Software and Testing Training
Go here to see the original:
Decision Table Testing Explained with Examples - Software Testing Tutorial - Video