Yes, but now that the US government has paved the way, the European governments are coming to realize that they actually like the idea of tighter border controls, too, and they find ready support in the population.
Requiring visas for Americans may be tit-for-tat, but biometrics at EU borders for non-Americans is not.
This is just tit-for-tat: the US requires the same things of Europeans entering the US, and the EU is returning the favor.
If it were "tit-for-tat", it would only apply to US visitors and the Europeans would say that it was tit-for-tat (there isn't much point in doing it otherwise).
No, the EU is doing this for the same reasons the US is doing it. Whether they are good reasons is debatable, of course.
This is politics as usual: Europe follows the US pretty closely on privacy, policing, copyrights, and all that, sometimes after a bit of posturing.
The only way to ship a complex product without security holes is not to ship it at all: with a few hundred thousand lines of code, or a few million in a big product line, you can't catch __all__ the holes even with with a rigorous Q/A policy.
If you write your product in C++ using programmers you hired out of college or outsourced to India, it is not. If you use the right tools and development methods, it is very much possible.
Companies are just choosing the wrong tradeoffs right now: fast time-to-market, lots of features, low development costs, low reliability, and little security. Legal liability would change their priorities.
I would treat a new law less like a software release and more like a drug: its approval should be based on evidence for safety and effectiveness, and it should be monitored even after it becomes effective.
However, laws are made by politicians, and there's an entirely different set of constrains on them. Politicians often like laws to be somewhat vague and leave the hard choices to the courts.
When companies ship software with security holes, it's a product defect. If they don't want to be embarrassed by that in public, they should simply not introduce security holes.
From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day.
You're naive if you think that Europe is any different. Except for a little anti-American political posturing by European politicians, which plays well to European nationalist sentiments, on the whole, Europe basically implements the same policies as the US, and European voters have an even worse herd mentality than American voters. Hey, you're a prime example yourself.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how US democracy works. In the US, the president and the executive have broad powers to act autonomously. It's helped the US hold together for more than two centuries, while other democracies have fallen apart. Some presidents use this power unwisely, others use it wisely. For eight years, Bush held that power. Over the next couple of decades, Congress and American voters will decide on whether Bush used that power wisely or not, what to repeal, and which parts of it to write into law permanently. Furthermore, make no mistake, the US exports democracy for the purpose of helping its own political and financial interests, not as an end in itself. Maybe you should get away from your Eurovision and learn a little more about the world at large.
A Microsoft takeover of Yahoo! would probably have given Yahoo! stock holders a last ditch shot in the arm, while at the same time hurting Microsoft pretty badly.
There are plenty of simple things we could be doing already to make transactions more anonymous and secure, but companie and governments like getting all that information, and they collude to force customers to provide it.
I completely disagree with you and so does Comcast.
Of course Comcast isn't saying they are blocking P2P. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this in a thread called "they should simply have kicked violators". The point is that, according to the TOS, Comcast has the contractual right to kick P2P users. The FAQ represents customer service, and the TOS represents a legal and network management view, and they disagree. That is the problem.
It's because of childish attitudes like yours, namely that if you can get away with something sometimes, it becomes your right, that Comcast should have kicked violators, as they have every right to under the TOS.
Creating a standard that would allow people to host DTD's all over the web and fetch them automatically was major design stupidity, not just because people need to host that stuff, but because it misses the point of standardization in the first place.
So yes. Transactional consistency and a solid relational model are pretty much mandatory, and not going anywhere soon. The idea that they might be replaced by technology such as this is laughable.
Relational databases don't implement the relational model correctly anyway. As for transactional consistency, you can get that on top of many different kinds of stores (including file systems); relational databases have no monopoly on that.
Only in secular societies do you see the worst violations of human interaction, when there is no punishment when life is all you have, who gives a shit if I shoot your head off? you probably deserved it.
So, basically, you're telling us that when you're religious, you do the right thing not because you're a moral person, but because you're afraid of punishment. You know what? You're probably right. Atheists, on the other hand don't fear eternal damnation. When they act, they act because of their values and principles. Yet, they commit no more crimes or atrocities than religious people.
You're so steeped in your own lack of morality that you can't even conceive that other human beings do the right thing, not because they fear punishment, but because they are actually intrinsically moral. That tells us a great deal about what kind of person you are.
You can't win Google and Yahoo! when you play by evil rules. China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people and ideas.
You and I play by the same evil rules when we buy Chinese made electronics and clothes, made in Chinese sweat shops. The US government plays by the same evil rules when it borrows money from the Chinese (for interest!) and kowtows to Chinese monetary and trade policies.
So, don't blame Google or Yahoo alone; this is a problem that almost every American business, politician, and consumer is contributing to.
Linus is heading the Linux kernel development and he's doing a pretty good job at that. He does not, and has never, "spoken for" the Linux community as a whole.
Of course, P2P is a "filesharing service", both in common usage and in terms of their definition. Even if your hair splitting actually applied, the TOS clearly say that they can restrict any service they like anyway; they're just giving you examples of things that definitely are not acceptable.
If you want to run any kind of file sharing service, get the commercial subscription; it's a little more expensive, but you can do what you want. Don't complain that you get restrictions when you get the cheapest subscription there is.
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to: [...] run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
Comcast's terms of service have always prohibited P2P usage and running servers. If Comcast had simply enforced those TOS and canceled the contracts of people who violated the TOS (instead of playing around with throttling), they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.
i don't believe this quote is about people who don't believe in god but Israelites who had turned away from god (sin)
That's splitting hairs. If you were born an Israelite and rejected God as soon as you could, you were an "Israelite who had turned away from God". And these days, every Christian, Jew, and atheist born in the US or Europe could fall under that definition.
The Israelites of the OT were rampaging, mudering, pillaging savages. So were the Christians and Muslims that followed them. It was until the enlightenment and secular society that these forces were brought under control. And they still rear their ugly heads from time to time, even in the West.
True. And I don't even want to get into a debate whether those people were "really" members of those faiths or not.
But there is still a valid scientific question: assuming you come from roughly the same economic and social background, are you statistically more likely to become a terrorist if you're buddhist, muslim, christian, atheist, or a member of some other religion. And that's a question that can be answered with statistics, at least in principle.
Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.
I will defend your right to practice your religion. That's religious freedom. I will defend my right to document your religion, in both word and picture. That's also religious freedom. In fact, I will defend my right to tell you and the world that I think your prophet was a fraud and a war mongering charlatan. That's also religious freedom. You'll just have to live with it.
It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents; in the past, that sort of thing was necessary when traveling behind the iron curtain.
It's also pointless, given that data can be stored easily and encrypted on the Internet, on flash drives (some of which are tiny), or even hidden steganographically.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but now that the US government has paved the way, the European governments are coming to realize that they actually like the idea of tighter border controls, too, and they find ready support in the population.
Requiring visas for Americans may be tit-for-tat, but biometrics at EU borders for non-Americans is not.
This is just tit-for-tat: the US requires the same things of Europeans entering the US, and the EU is returning the favor.
If it were "tit-for-tat", it would only apply to US visitors and the Europeans would say that it was tit-for-tat (there isn't much point in doing it otherwise).
No, the EU is doing this for the same reasons the US is doing it. Whether they are good reasons is debatable, of course.
This is politics as usual: Europe follows the US pretty closely on privacy, policing, copyrights, and all that, sometimes after a bit of posturing.
The only way to ship a complex product without security holes is not to ship it at all: with a few hundred thousand lines of code, or a few million in a big product line, you can't catch __all__ the holes even with with a rigorous Q/A policy.
If you write your product in C++ using programmers you hired out of college or outsourced to India, it is not. If you use the right tools and development methods, it is very much possible.
Companies are just choosing the wrong tradeoffs right now: fast time-to-market, lots of features, low development costs, low reliability, and little security. Legal liability would change their priorities.
I would treat a new law less like a software release and more like a drug: its approval should be based on evidence for safety and effectiveness, and it should be monitored even after it becomes effective.
However, laws are made by politicians, and there's an entirely different set of constrains on them. Politicians often like laws to be somewhat vague and leave the hard choices to the courts.
When companies ship software with security holes, it's a product defect. If they don't want to be embarrassed by that in public, they should simply not introduce security holes.
From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day.
You're naive if you think that Europe is any different. Except for a little anti-American political posturing by European politicians, which plays well to European nationalist sentiments, on the whole, Europe basically implements the same policies as the US, and European voters have an even worse herd mentality than American voters. Hey, you're a prime example yourself.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how US democracy works. In the US, the president and the executive have broad powers to act autonomously. It's helped the US hold together for more than two centuries, while other democracies have fallen apart. Some presidents use this power unwisely, others use it wisely. For eight years, Bush held that power. Over the next couple of decades, Congress and American voters will decide on whether Bush used that power wisely or not, what to repeal, and which parts of it to write into law permanently. Furthermore, make no mistake, the US exports democracy for the purpose of helping its own political and financial interests, not as an end in itself. Maybe you should get away from your Eurovision and learn a little more about the world at large.
A Microsoft takeover of Yahoo! would probably have given Yahoo! stock holders a last ditch shot in the arm, while at the same time hurting Microsoft pretty badly.
There are plenty of simple things we could be doing already to make transactions more anonymous and secure, but companie and governments like getting all that information, and they collude to force customers to provide it.
I completely disagree with you and so does Comcast.
Of course Comcast isn't saying they are blocking P2P. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this in a thread called "they should simply have kicked violators". The point is that, according to the TOS, Comcast has the contractual right to kick P2P users. The FAQ represents customer service, and the TOS represents a legal and network management view, and they disagree. That is the problem.
It's because of childish attitudes like yours, namely that if you can get away with something sometimes, it becomes your right, that Comcast should have kicked violators, as they have every right to under the TOS.
Creating a standard that would allow people to host DTD's all over the web and fetch them automatically was major design stupidity, not just because people need to host that stuff, but because it misses the point of standardization in the first place.
So yes. Transactional consistency and a solid relational model are pretty much mandatory, and not going anywhere soon. The idea that they might be replaced by technology such as this is laughable.
Relational databases don't implement the relational model correctly anyway. As for transactional consistency, you can get that on top of many different kinds of stores (including file systems); relational databases have no monopoly on that.
Only in secular societies do you see the worst violations of human interaction, when there is no punishment when life is all you have, who gives a shit if I shoot your head off? you probably deserved it.
So, basically, you're telling us that when you're religious, you do the right thing not because you're a moral person, but because you're afraid of punishment. You know what? You're probably right. Atheists, on the other hand don't fear eternal damnation. When they act, they act because of their values and principles. Yet, they commit no more crimes or atrocities than religious people.
You're so steeped in your own lack of morality that you can't even conceive that other human beings do the right thing, not because they fear punishment, but because they are actually intrinsically moral. That tells us a great deal about what kind of person you are.
You can't win Google and Yahoo! when you play by evil rules. China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people and ideas.
You and I play by the same evil rules when we buy Chinese made electronics and clothes, made in Chinese sweat shops. The US government plays by the same evil rules when it borrows money from the Chinese (for interest!) and kowtows to Chinese monetary and trade policies.
So, don't blame Google or Yahoo alone; this is a problem that almost every American business, politician, and consumer is contributing to.
Linus is heading the Linux kernel development and he's doing a pretty good job at that. He does not, and has never, "spoken for" the Linux community as a whole.
Of course, P2P is a "filesharing service", both in common usage and in terms of their definition. Even if your hair splitting actually applied, the TOS clearly say that they can restrict any service they like anyway; they're just giving you examples of things that definitely are not acceptable.
If you want to run any kind of file sharing service, get the commercial subscription; it's a little more expensive, but you can do what you want. Don't complain that you get restrictions when you get the cheapest subscription there is.
Simply don't use Hotmail. Take your traffic to services that don't play such stupid tricks.
That restriction has been there for years.
Comcast's terms of service have always prohibited P2P usage and running servers. If Comcast had simply enforced those TOS and canceled the contracts of people who violated the TOS (instead of playing around with throttling), they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.
i don't believe this quote is about people who don't believe in god but Israelites who had turned away from god (sin)
That's splitting hairs. If you were born an Israelite and rejected God as soon as you could, you were an "Israelite who had turned away from God". And these days, every Christian, Jew, and atheist born in the US or Europe could fall under that definition.
The Israelites of the OT were rampaging, mudering, pillaging savages. So were the Christians and Muslims that followed them. It was until the enlightenment and secular society that these forces were brought under control. And they still rear their ugly heads from time to time, even in the West.
True. And I don't even want to get into a debate whether those people were "really" members of those faiths or not.
But there is still a valid scientific question: assuming you come from roughly the same economic and social background, are you statistically more likely to become a terrorist if you're buddhist, muslim, christian, atheist, or a member of some other religion. And that's a question that can be answered with statistics, at least in principle.
Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.
I will defend your right to practice your religion. That's religious freedom. I will defend my right to document your religion, in both word and picture. That's also religious freedom. In fact, I will defend my right to tell you and the world that I think your prophet was a fraud and a war mongering charlatan. That's also religious freedom. You'll just have to live with it.
I don't see it.
$ apt-cache search truecrypt
$
http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=truecrypt&searchmode=filelist&case=insensitive&version=gutsy&arch=i386
What's the package called?
It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents; in the past, that sort of thing was necessary when traveling behind the iron curtain.
It's also pointless, given that data can be stored easily and encrypted on the Internet, on flash drives (some of which are tiny), or even hidden steganographically.
These kinds of locks are trivial to open with a lockpick. Why go through all the trouble making a key?
(I suppose it may look a little more "official".)