While I am glad that our armed services evaluate all threat pathways (even obvious ones), I am offended when our officers try to impact a political agenda, as was done in this case.
This is an obvious attempt to pander to fear to increase military appropriations or otherwise alter civilian behavior. The officers in question here should have made their report to their commanders. The commanders could then refer their report to their civilian superiors. The civilian superiors ought then make all decisions about disclosure.
This is simply military involvement in the politics of speech--and it is entirely unwarranted. Military officers must stay out of politics.
Many religions are never satisfied. Unless they dominate, they are oppressed (because they are the TRUTH, after all). Even when they do dominate, they are ever-vigilant against heresy, because, after all NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.
I couldn't agree more. A good safe bike path network blows all this high tech stuff away easy. I ride 6.1 miles each way and it is only about ten to fifteen minutes slower each way--and way more fun and relaxing.
I'd want to ride a maglev once, though! It would be really cool from NYC to DC.
Congress can use the Commerce Clause to expressly preempt the entire field--i.e., take it out of the states' ability to legislate. Express preemption became a big deal in the New Deal era when the Feds established all sorts of uniform nationwide laws and regulations following the collapse of the economy in the Great Depression.
The Commerce Clause also has a sweep of its own, independent of any congressional attempt to enact preemptive legislation based on the Commerce Clause. That's what I mean by dormant. The dormant Commerce Clause became important, for example, when New Jersey tried to ban New York garbage from entering the state. The Supreme Court stopped that.
By seizing the domain name, the State now owns or controls the domain name. It owns or controls it in the home state, and by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, it owns or controls it in all the states. This is part one--the acquisition of the right.
Part two--the enforcement of the right--will be very interesting. Destruction of the domain's ability to do business in the home State appears to be a trivial problem. Destruction of the ability to do business in each of the other states is a tedious process, but thanks to the full faith and credit clause, a doable thing.
The dormant Commerce Clause, however, looms over all of this as the big Green Monster looms over Fenway. In short, the several states can't go writing laws that straightjacket interstate commerce. But addressing that question is probably too much trouble for to take for the two or three people that will read this post.
I can envision an internet fork where the safe provision of multimedia entertainment is the primary goal. People who care can then argue about "net neutrality" all that they want, but most of the eyeballs will go to the eye candy--and the eye candy will be provided by the copyright-clad establishment media.
In that 'multimedia entertainment net,' security and control will be prime considerations. Commerce will flock there. It will be stringently policed and censored. There will be little need for an "internet police force" because the source of any security breach will have its access cut off with no concern for individual rights (because the applicable rights will have been defined by contract). Anybody who doesn't like that can dwell in the "wild west internet."
This kind of future-model makes more sense to me than the drivel about an internet police force. Prosecutors and Police are busy enough with violent crime; taxpayers are NOT going to pay the very real money to effectively police the internet. Citizens always want more criminal justice than they are willing to pay for.
This stuff is great but it needs to be carefully regulated so we don't end up with an asbestosis-like problem down the road.
Government regulation is a good thing, when it comes to things like OSHA and the FDA. I don't think that the capitalist free market will put worker safety first when it comes to manufacturing a hazardous product (Bhopal, anyone), so its up to our governments to protect us from overzealous exploitation of wonderful new things.
Maybe nanotubes are not hazardous, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Last year I was convinced he was worse than NIXON. He's easily worse than HARDING and COOLIDGE. And I think he just beat BUCHANAN.
He is . . . the Worst President of All Time. Bush talks about the tax and spend Democrats, but he spends like a hallucinating-drunk Democrat. After spending all that money, he--like Obama and McCain--talk about tax cuts. And what does Bush have to show for it? Zipoleum. Any president would look good after him.
McCain would be 76 years old should he finish his term. Palin stands in the wings. This is a time of crisis, and all they chant is Drill, Drill, Drill. Substitute heroin for oil and it makes a pretty picture.
"It" is your property? What do you mean by it? Do you mean a complex of rights defined by the game developers that you agreed to via EULA?
Is "it" an emotional thing you feel that deserves governmental protection (i.e., protection financed by tax dollars)?
What is "property" in your scheme? A bit arrangement on someone else's computer? Do you have rights in their computer? From what do your rights derive?
To address this question you need to address (a) your society's conception of property; and (b) your own conception of property. Fuzzy thinking is not helpful here.
I don't think that my tax dollars should be spent enforcing property structures in vapid computer games. If people in the games really care about such stupid shit, then they ought to create virtual legislatures, virtual police, virtual courts, etc. (i.e., virtual dispute resolution). If people want to dork about in computer games equipped with virtual police, lawyers, and judges, more power to them. Just don't use my tax dollars to police your fantasy.
Most people under 40 did NOT support the Weathermen! Your statement is monumentally wrong. You could say that most people in Berkeley, or Bloomington, or Ann Arbor supported the SDS, maybe . . . .
But the Weathermen? Never. The Weathermen were plain violent hypocrites.
"If a society can't survive dissent it shouldn't survive?"
Such a statement is either flamebait or idiocy. The person who wrote it must not be able to conceive of the great pain and suffering that social disorder can bring. A society should not be scrapped just because it does not realize the author's ideal of social justice.
A stable, imperfect, society can always be replaced by something much worse. The social fabric, once torn, can be very hard to re-weave.
Humphrey Bogart called it "fuck you money." Once you have enough of that, you are not compelled to do any project. The other side is lawyered up--no doubt about that. Obtaining another opportunity will cause them to carefully examine how much they want to alienate you.
The cloud metaphor seems to consist of a relatively small number of very big and very powerful systems and a large number of idiot boxes. I don't see how this is much different from the old Big Blue mainframe relationship.
Computer technology exploded when it went mass market. The cloud approach would reverse this (so the big companies can make big money). Why put a choke on the economic power of the computer business?
Stallman may be hyperbolic here, but he's not wrong. May rapid technological invention kill the cloud!
What a waste of the legal system. A kid disrupted the school environment and got suspended--big wow. Then the parents of the kid make a FEDERAL CASE out of it!
The kids were just being kids, but the litigious parents (of the one kid) are indulgent fools.
The kids waste the school's time and resources with their folly and the parents waste the time of the federal courts . ... The apple isn't falling too far from the tree here.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am glad that our armed services evaluate all threat pathways (even obvious ones), I am offended when our officers try to impact a political agenda, as was done in this case.
This is an obvious attempt to pander to fear to increase military appropriations or otherwise alter civilian behavior. The officers in question here should have made their report to their commanders. The commanders could then refer their report to their civilian superiors. The civilian superiors ought then make all decisions about disclosure.
This is simply military involvement in the politics of speech--and it is entirely unwarranted. Military officers must stay out of politics.
Many religions are never satisfied. Unless they dominate, they are oppressed (because they are the TRUTH, after all). Even when they do dominate, they are ever-vigilant against heresy, because, after all NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.
I couldn't agree more. A good safe bike path network blows all this high tech stuff away easy. I ride 6.1 miles each way and it is only about ten to fifteen minutes slower each way--and way more fun and relaxing.
I'd want to ride a maglev once, though! It would be really cool from NYC to DC.
Congress can use the Commerce Clause to expressly preempt the entire field--i.e., take it out of the states' ability to legislate. Express preemption became a big deal in the New Deal era when the Feds established all sorts of uniform nationwide laws and regulations following the collapse of the economy in the Great Depression.
The Commerce Clause also has a sweep of its own, independent of any congressional attempt to enact preemptive legislation based on the Commerce Clause. That's what I mean by dormant. The dormant Commerce Clause became important, for example, when New Jersey tried to ban New York garbage from entering the state. The Supreme Court stopped that.
By seizing the domain name, the State now owns or controls the domain name. It owns or controls it in the home state, and by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, it owns or controls it in all the states. This is part one--the acquisition of the right.
Part two--the enforcement of the right--will be very interesting. Destruction of the domain's ability to do business in the home State appears to be a trivial problem. Destruction of the ability to do business in each of the other states is a tedious process, but thanks to the full faith and credit clause, a doable thing.
The dormant Commerce Clause, however, looms over all of this as the big Green Monster looms over Fenway. In short, the several states can't go writing laws that straightjacket interstate commerce. But addressing that question is probably too much trouble for to take for the two or three people that will read this post.
I can envision an internet fork where the safe provision of multimedia entertainment is the primary goal. People who care can then argue about "net neutrality" all that they want, but most of the eyeballs will go to the eye candy--and the eye candy will be provided by the copyright-clad establishment media.
In that 'multimedia entertainment net,' security and control will be prime considerations. Commerce will flock there. It will be stringently policed and censored. There will be little need for an "internet police force" because the source of any security breach will have its access cut off with no concern for individual rights (because the applicable rights will have been defined by contract). Anybody who doesn't like that can dwell in the "wild west internet."
This kind of future-model makes more sense to me than the drivel about an internet police force. Prosecutors and Police are busy enough with violent crime; taxpayers are NOT going to pay the very real money to effectively police the internet. Citizens always want more criminal justice than they are willing to pay for.
This stuff is great but it needs to be carefully regulated so we don't end up with an asbestosis-like problem down the road.
Government regulation is a good thing, when it comes to things like OSHA and the FDA. I don't think that the capitalist free market will put worker safety first when it comes to manufacturing a hazardous product (Bhopal, anyone), so its up to our governments to protect us from overzealous exploitation of wonderful new things.
Maybe nanotubes are not hazardous, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
The caption says all I want to say here.
Last year I was convinced he was worse than NIXON.
He's easily worse than HARDING and COOLIDGE.
And I think he just beat BUCHANAN.
He is . . . the Worst President of All Time. Bush talks about the tax and spend Democrats, but he spends like a hallucinating-drunk Democrat. After spending all that money, he--like Obama and McCain--talk about tax cuts. And what does Bush have to show for it? Zipoleum. Any president would look good after him.
McCain would be 76 years old should he finish his term. Palin stands in the wings. This is a time of crisis, and all they chant is Drill, Drill, Drill. Substitute heroin for oil and it makes a pretty picture.
Gotta vote Obama. No real choice.
"It" is your property? What do you mean by it? Do you mean a complex of rights defined by the game developers that you agreed to via EULA?
Is "it" an emotional thing you feel that deserves governmental protection (i.e., protection financed by tax dollars)?
What is "property" in your scheme? A bit arrangement on someone else's computer? Do you have rights in their computer? From what do your rights derive?
To address this question you need to address (a) your society's conception of property; and (b) your own conception of property. Fuzzy thinking is not helpful here.
I don't think that my tax dollars should be spent enforcing property structures in vapid computer games. If people in the games really care about such stupid shit, then they ought to create virtual legislatures, virtual police, virtual courts, etc. (i.e., virtual dispute resolution). If people want to dork about in computer games equipped with virtual police, lawyers, and judges, more power to them. Just don't use my tax dollars to police your fantasy.
Most people under 40 did NOT support the Weathermen! Your statement is monumentally wrong. You could say that most people in Berkeley, or Bloomington, or Ann Arbor supported the SDS, maybe . . . .
But the Weathermen? Never. The Weathermen were plain violent hypocrites.
Make it financially rewarding to learn and teach math.
Does the IP address indicate a Chinese intrusion, or is that just a spin?
"If a society can't survive dissent it shouldn't survive?"
Such a statement is either flamebait or idiocy. The person who wrote it must not be able to conceive of the great pain and suffering that social disorder can bring. A society should not be scrapped just because it does not realize the author's ideal of social justice.
A stable, imperfect, society can always be replaced by something much worse. The social fabric, once torn, can be very hard to re-weave.
Humphrey Bogart called it "fuck you money." Once you have enough of that, you are not compelled to do any project. The other side is lawyered up--no doubt about that. Obtaining another opportunity will cause them to carefully examine how much they want to alienate you.
They would name it Sofia, wouldn't they?
The cloud metaphor seems to consist of a relatively small number of very big and very powerful systems and a large number of idiot boxes. I don't see how this is much different from the old Big Blue mainframe relationship.
Computer technology exploded when it went mass market. The cloud approach would reverse this (so the big companies can make big money). Why put a choke on the economic power of the computer business?
Stallman may be hyperbolic here, but he's not wrong. May rapid technological invention kill the cloud!
Yes, indeed.
Sam Spade is just the man!
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that there is cheating occurring in online poker!
Round up the usual suspects . . .
You miss the point. It's the "pussy" who takes down John Wayne by shooting him in the back. He may still be a pussy, but John Wayne's still dead.
The disgruntled IT worker should not be ignored, despite your macho posturings otherwise.
Knowing the enemy's potential avenues of attack is a wonderful asset. It makes counter-attacking and defending much easier.
I am amazed that Chuck Norris has allowed this to happen. Thank goodness we all live in a benevolent Chucktocracy.
What a waste of the legal system. A kid disrupted the school environment and got suspended--big wow. Then the parents of the kid make a FEDERAL CASE out of it!
The kids were just being kids, but the litigious parents (of the one kid) are indulgent fools.
The kids waste the school's time and resources with their folly and the parents waste the time of the federal courts . . .. The apple isn't falling too far from the tree here.
School is there to help kids who want to learn.
If it's expensive, pass the cost of the testing onto the people who don't scoop the poop!
The deterrent effect of German history? What about the STASI? They didn't get deterred! As I recall, they were pretty bad . . ..