Slashdot Mirror
Safemedia's CEO Tells Congress He Can Stop P2P
palewook writes "Yesterday, Safwat Fahmy appeared in front of the House Science and Technology Committee. During Fahmy's testimony [PDF], he claimed Safemedia's "P2P Disaggregator" technology uses traffic-shaping systems and network-filtering systems that can destroy contaminated P2P networks. And their Clouseau product will make it impossible to send or receive any illegal P2P transmission on any installed network. However, Clouseau allows tunneling and SSH and never opens packets to determine file legality."
Move along!
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
That depends on whether you're serving as an elected official.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
## Expression of opinion If it were, we wouldn't have a Congress anymore. All congressmen would be in prison, along with the president and all of his Chiefs of staff. Lying is a pre-requisite to being a politician. ## End of expression
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Bush got away with it too, so where's the problem?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right because firing cruise missiles into a nation without putting your own people at risk is morally so much more superior to actually trying to change anything in that nation. Look I dont like bush and the Iraq fiasco is a disaster but its morally not any worse than bombing the crap out of a nation so you can look tough like Clinton did.
I voted against Bush FWIW because being wrong about something is, well, wrong. Lying about something is, well, evil. Ignoring that someone else did the same thing because you don't hate them is, well, hypocrisy. Bush and Clinton were either both wrong or both lying and took military action based on that. Dems choose to ignore Clinton and Repubs choose to accept bush independent thinkers realize both were wrong.
Right because firing cruise missiles into a nation without putting your own people at risk is morally so much more superior to actually trying to change anything in that nation.
There's nothing "morally superior" about trying to change things within a nation that isn't yours. If you don't like the actions of that nation's government, bombing the nation is one allowable reaction. Changing the government is the job of the people of that nation. If they're not willing to change their government, then it's only their own fault if they get bombed.
Trying to change things within a foreign nation is like trying to fix someone else's marriage. You're only going to get hurt, and the people will hate you. Ask the cops about domestic calls.
No, Clinton decided for a few points in the polls he wold fire cruise missiles into Iraq, the genius of Clinton is because he did not commit to anything other than killing people in Iraq he could look like a war time leader without having to risk actually fighting a war.
He wiped out what little water and power services were left. He left the borders unguarded. He gutted law enforcement.
Sort of different one committed to try and make things better (and botched it up pretty badly) and the other just used the military to get some points in the polls when he was hurting with no intention of removing the monster that had Iraq under sanctions in the first place.