there is a thing called developmental noise, thats the outcome of phenotype after post expressional events further modify the expression products [proteins, RNA, MeDNA etc.]
the face you interpolate from genetic sequence will be an approximation.
there is far too much hackability Re spoofed user names, a machine can tell if a name is reused but people often cant.
...the problem with filtering name and passwd reuse also bring hackability into play, suppose guard0g is on a secure system and the user names are not supposed to be public, we now know that guard0g at least was in use at one time if not currently, this info can be used in crafting a soc.eng. attack...
Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft star-shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.
i was assuming you were concerned with the assembly coming apart when used, but now i see your concern, using the technic material itself is similar to making an airplane out of concrete~yes?
if you know what you are doing you dont need to take any kind of a digital asset across a border, everything you need can be obtained at your destination...
border agents are not paid to respect your property, so avoid the opportunity for them to destroy your intellectual achievments via ignorance
However...
==> Your rights at the border. Compared to people and police in the interior of the country, border agents have more power and people crossing the border have less privacy. But the border is not a Constitution-free zone. The powers of border agents are tempered by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, association, press, and religion), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), the Fifth Amendment (freedom from compelled self-incrimination), and the Fourteenth Amendment (freedom from discrimination).
but the agents do have the right to mitigate security/criminal threats.
Having grown up in the UK and known people to have been convicted of crimes, it's never struck me as disgusting or something that is particularly unfair. You're within your rights to refuse to answer a question, but this could be used against you in court.
"Where were you on the night of the killing?"
"..."
Prosecution could well use your initial refusal to answer this question to aid their case in court, even if you then provide some answer within court.
I am very unfamiliar with American law concerning these matters, so I'm not sure how much of a divide there is between America and the UK when it comes to this.
From that page: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
IANAL, but my understanding is that if the question is "What's your Facebook password?" and you refuse to give it, then the prosecution can mention this fact in a trial. But this by itself is not a problem for you. However, if you claim in court that there's evidence in your Facebook feed that shows you did not commit the crime (e.g. photos of you elsewhere at the time), then the jury might hold it against you that you didn't allow the police to access your Facebook account at the time, and they might then question the strength of this evidence.
try hanging around engineers, or geologists...they tend to have the almost daimetric qualities of intellect and being cut from a coarse crude cloth [dwile rag]
perhaps there is a socioeconomic class division at play here...
...i think the approach is that since he refused to provide a passwd and stymied the investigation, there is now a real basis in law to hold and prosecute him...i.e. put him in jail, with a bunch of others that dont like such ilk...a point of leverage i would think..
It's a weird situation because if a facebook engineer reset his password to something else, he'd never be able to get out of jail? Seems odd to make a criminal court order based on a commercial authentication scheme.
If he forgets the password or it gets magically reset somehow and he legitimately no longer has access to the account (a stretch....password resets are a thing for this reason), then perhaps he should still serve his time anyway as the crime has already been committed. If it was unrecoverable, then of course he'd still be able to get out. It even says in the article he was sentenced to 14 months, not until he gave up the password.
