"I've never had the opportunity to work with physical labor"

Yes you have. You could go out today and find a job doing physical labor unless you are significantly physically disabled. It's not like there is an educational barrier to all of those jobs. (Yes, I know there is to SOME of them because they require skills and performing physical labor)

As someone that has done plenty of both, you aren't contributing anything to this discussion unless you try it.

Seriously?

I don't know how it works on your country but unless I was at a starter level salary fresh out of college or I worked minimum wage, I couldn't work on any physical job without starving my family.

This comment actually diminishes physical labor implying "anyone can do it", which I don't believe it's true.

Sure, that money actually paid people to do work and those people were then able to stimulate the economy, pay for their education, all that good stuff.

But that same money could have been spent to actually do something useful and it still would have had that economic impact.

*And now I see where everyone else already made this extremely obvious point.

Is it? They already charge the amount they think meets the perfect balance of "as much as possible" and "not so much that less people buy".

I believe you can buy hubs that are single speed and then if you flip them are fixie, might be cheaper to put that on a cheap bike than having a kid...

Yup, they are called flip-flop hubs, quite common and a bunch of bikes come with them installed so you can always choose between singlespeed or fixed gear.

I'm a bit rusty, but I believe the way NTP works (at least the reference version which is commonly used) is that if a client sends too many requests in a short time, they are ignored except to reply with a "back off packet" which is called the KoD (Kiss of death) in NTP terms.

Security audits have found some issues with abusing the KoD so I'm not sure if it still works like that or if it tends to be disabled. (I was on one of the teams doing the audit, I found the "Skeleton Key" defect)

https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/rate.html#kiss

If you wanted to help the server deal with DoS even better, I would guess the best solution is to put a rate limiting firewall in front of it.

You're going to encrypt publicly accessible sensitive data with a 9 digit number ? This is not even close to the current level of security. You don't get to make millions of guesses when some dumb website or clerk requires your SSN to do something.

To decrypt data you get to guess over and over again. An SSN would be a terrible key for that.

It doesn't matter what any court says when we don't do anything about officers violating someone's rights.

It absolutely matters, because if the officers do search your phone without a warrant, none of that information is admissible in court.

Except in your ludicrous analogy, it's as if God were able to step in after the murder, point out that the murder was illegal, and then resurrected you. Sure, you spent some time dead (in jail/on trial), but afterwards you're free to go.

And it absolutely deters offenders, as prosecutors and cops aren't fans of failing to prosecute someone because they fucked up and illegitimized the evidence they planned on using.

I mean, sure, that particular cop got to laugh at your texts to your ex, but as far as evidence goes, it's a slam dunk for you.

Cops easily get around this with parallel construction. They illegally read your texts about you going to go pick up some drugs, then pull you over for "driving erratically" and "accidently" stumble upon the drugs you bought. The police do not care about your rights.

That's the kind of faith in the system that only people who have never seen it in action still have.

A friend got pulled over for speeding. Cop did not clock their speed, at trial they did not even know the speed limit for the road. Judge "seems legit, your guilty."

You and I live in totally different worlds. What you describe is not what happens in mine. As others below have noted.

The court system is the check against officers violating rights.

In this article, the officers violated the suspect's rights and the court system decided against indicting him on the crime he was charged with.

That's not really doing anything. We don't do anything.

What we do is violate someone's rights and then hope we don't get caught. Police are likely to cover up for other police.

In the meantime, the person gets arrested. May or may not be able to post bail and may or may not be able to afford a lawyer. The longer he sits in jail, the more likely it is to severely mess up his life. Some places will let someone go or suspend them just for being arrested.

It is unlikely that the prosecutor refuses to prosecute because someone's rights might have been violated. So we take it to court. The public defender might have spent very little time on the case, and may or may not bring up the violation. The prosecutor definitely doesn't, and they might get found guilty.

If the defendent is really lucky, somewhere like the ACLU picks up his case and it goes to the surpreme court, like this one. Now this is where we really don't do anything:

We've completely screwed up this person's life. They get no compensation for the rights violation. Most times, the police nor prosecutor do not receive any punishment. And we do absolutely nothing for other folks in the same situation. Absolutely nothing. Their rights have been violated too - but they weren't public.

The checks and balances the system is supposed to have are broken. Simply broken. And we don't have the inclination to fix any of it. We refuse to hold different bits in the chain accountable and we refuse to provide more comprehensive training to the police. We refuse to make sure folks have adequate defense when they cannot hire an attorney - and in many states we make them pay for the defense nonetheless, regardless of how poor they actually are.

And like the parent says...

What, exactly, were the consequences of the officers violating his rights?

And I don't think you read the article:

> the court system decided against indicting him on the crime he was charged with.

Absolutely he was indicted, AND convicted.

It had to be appealed to the Supreme Court before the convictions were vacated.

> The court system is the check against officers violating rights

It's supposed to be, but in reality it certainly isn't. What happens when officers go to court? Oh wait, usually they don't. And when they do, they usually aren't convicted. And when they're convicted, they usually don't get strict sentences.

You don't have rights if you're within 100 miles of the border.

That's disingenuous, at best. Yes, the rights to be secure in your papers and property are diminished. No, they can't make you house troops within that zone.

I'm also pretty sure they can't just come in my house on a whim. I live within that zone. I still have a right to express myself, bear firearms, etc...

And then someone uses you in an DoS amplification attack instead of going after you directly.

Basically don't offer hackers any data amplification attacks, never respond with more data than it took for the attack to make the request.

What? For data amplification attacks to work you need to spoof IP addresses, which is almost impossible with TCP (telnet uses it), GP was a victim of a plain old DDoS.