Anya ,'Showtime'
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
So, if someone (who is not me, but I would set it up) wanted to set up a VPN between an office and a laptop, what's the best way to go? Hardware VPN for the office and software VPN for the laptop? Software on both ends? This would be for an XP network, but I think the computers do not have XP pro. Windows has built-in VPN software, right? Is this only with XP Pro?
Haven't done any research yet, but I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction first....
Oh, thank goodness. That CT substitute teacher, who was convicted on porn charges because her class computer kept popping up ads, has been granted a new trial: [link]
Background here: [link]
That's good news. The prosecutors in that case were totally dense.
The prosecutors in that case were totally dense.
Everybody in that case was totally dense. Except maybe the school administration, which might have been more cynically self-interested than dense....
True that.
Judge Hillary Strackbein said the state had conducted further forensic information that the jury had not heard at the trial. The information, according to defense experts, was that the computer had generated pornographic popups and that Amero, a substitute teacher, was not at fault.
Well, DUH. (Though if I'm not mistaken, this isn't technically "new" information. It's only new in that the previous judge and jury completely ignored it, which I guess counts as having been "not heard at the trial.")
Good for this judge. Hopefully they'll get a jury this time around who's actually seen a computer before.
I thought what was new is that THE STATE had that evidence, but withheld it. Previously, the defense had tried to present the same information via an expert witness, but the prosecution cried foul because it hadn't been previously informed about the malware defense.
MIT revisits wireless power: [link]
I think the problem is that the defense was supposed to mention that they were bringing up the existence of malware during the pre-trial phase. Since they surprised the prosecution with it, the prosecution was able to ask that it be disregarded.
Why though? It isn't like this is something that the prosecution didn't know ANYTHING about it. They knew about this during discovery, right?