Unfortunately the SEC only has jurisdiction on stocks traded on certain exchanges coupled with the fact that profiting from it alone really doesn't mean you did it, it makes it a lot harder to track down then you think.
Profiting once, maybe. Twice, well.... possibly. Three times? Get the warrants and taps.
This is where "data mining" would come in. You know the stocks, you know who profited, you just have to find the connections. Even if the SEC cannot handle it, the FBI should be able to.
Really, this should be the easiest to crack. Someone has to take the money. Or some company which then turns it over to some person. The SEC should be busting these left and right.
Let's ignore the faction that benefits from the status-quo.
No, let's look at cars. The heavy equipment that usually takes a new driver a few months to "master".
And yet tens of thousands of people are KILLED while operating these every year. And I'm not even talking about crippling injuries, non-crippling injuries or property damage.
The fact is that even when their LIFE IS AT RISK people fail to handle the technology they have correctly. Even after being trained on it.
So why would they spend more time and effort learning how to program effectively?
(Also, as an aside, the article implies this new magic allows for "easy" creation of new applications. This is hardly so. All the care and due diligence of putting an application are still required. The effort can still be significant... There is certainly time saved if a team leverages existing critical applications but to toss this out as magical and easy for any end user community to leverage is probably glib and misleading.)
Yep, we see that every few years. Strangely enough, it coincides with the latest new "paradigm".
I blame Star Trek. People want technology to be magically easy to configure and re-purpose. But it isn't. Computers don't "think" like people do and it takes a lot of work for a person to think the way a computer does.
Being pretty much accurate for most of the data most of the time is what you get when the untrained person attempts it.
There should not be ANY inquiries that you did not specifically authorize.
There are lots of circumstances where a company will ask for your authorization to pull your report. Renting, credit app, loan app, etc. But you should have authorized each of those.
If other people are pulling your report, that is a HUGE problem because your report has information about account numbers, balances and just about everything they'd need for "identity theft".
You're right. If that question was the entire interview, then it's not a very good question. If the interview was more than one question, it's a good question.
Given your post, it seems like it would be a good question to ask you in an interview to determine whether you are good at understanding and communicating with people.
When you finally join the business world, you'll learn a few things:
#1. It's all about time and money.
#2. Time is money.
#3. Therefore, it's all about the money.
Unless you're an IT company, IT is a loss. IT sucks profits from the company. The best IT can hope to accomplish is to make the jobs of the people who do bring in the money easy enough that they can bring in MORE money that at least balances the cost of IT.
That means you focus MOST of your efforts where you will have the MOST improvement in that.
That is the "understanding and communicating with people" answer that will get you hired and keep you employed. If you can increase profits 10x, 20x, 50x, 100x the amount you're being paid, you're a "success".
That "noob" who doesn't know anything about computers needs to be incredibly valuable to the company for your example to work. I'm not saying that the situation cannot happen. I'm saying that you'll have more instances where doubling the company's profitability will be more important than helping the "noob" learn how to operate a computer, on company time, at the company's expense, using company equipment and eating up your hours.
It's still a good question, even if the employees do, in fact, have a moderate understanding of their computers.
Let's look at this from a different perspective, okay?
What would a shop owner expect as an answer from a mechanic applicant?
Owner: "What do you think of customers who know absolutely nothing about cars?"
Mechanic: "I think they'll probably cause a lot of damage to their vehicles which means we'll make a lot of money doing the repairs."
How about a dentist?
Owner: "What do you think of customers who know absolutely nothing about tooth care?"
Mechanic: "I think they'll probably cause a lot of damage to their teeth which means we'll make a lot of money doing the repairs. Do we have literature I can recommend to them?"
See? The difference is whether the USER is paying for their ignorance or the COMPANY is paying.
In the case of tech support, in most cases (unless you're a contractor/consultant) it is the company that is paying the price. It's easy to be VERY nice when you're looking at a disaster that you'll be paid a couple of thousand dollars to fix.
It's completely different when you're looking at a disaster that will require you to work 60+ hours this week... thus effectively reducing your hourly wage (because you are salaried).
Mechanic: "Honey, I'll be home really late but I'm making at butt-load of money! We'll party this weekend."
IT Tech: "Honey, I'll be home really late. I know. No, there's nothing I can do. Yes, I know. I know."
Are you using links back to website for the graphics, which break in certain email apps... or are you including the graphics in the email, thus making the email messages very large?
Now Microsoft will have TWO HTML renderers to debug and maintain. They had enough trouble with one.
Now we'll see exploits for IE and exploits for Outlook's renderer.
They've made the rendering part of the OS. If you cannot replace it with a different one, at least all of their apps should rely upon the same, built-in, OS functionality.
Energy supplies are the limit on replication, so there are actual scarcities, just not noticeable by someone who doesn't examine the overall economy.
There is a limited amount of air available on Earth... but no one notices the limit no matter how much we breathe.
For a limit to have an effect on demand, that limit has to be noticeable.
And if there is a limit, then there is someone deciding how to apportion that limited resource. Which gets back to Soviet-style "Communism". Particularly since there is no "money" and it's difficult to store "energy" by hiding it under your mattress.
You never hear of anyone "saving up" for a large purchase or being "poor" after a large expenditure. Everyone in Star Fleet has everything they want, when they want it and for their exclusive, personal, private usage.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but part of the idea of SSL certificates is also to verify that the site you're connecting to is actually the site it's claiming to be.
That depends upon how you mean that.
If I get a certificate issued to server "apple" at "berry.com" with address 123.456.789.012, then that is all that you know from that certificate. The server's resolved name and address match the server name and address for which that certificate was issued.
But that is all you know. That means that that certificate cannot be moved to a different server. Even one owned by that same company.
But it tells you nothing about whether the site is who "it's claiming to be".
Example: A phishing site can claim to be from Bank of America and have a legitimate certificate issued to server1.BoA-security.com. But it would not be a Bank of America site.
This new plan attempts to deal with that issue by making "green" certificates available... but only to people who can somehow demonstrate that they're working for an established corporation. This is based upon the belief that corporations would be less likely to be used to setup a phishing site.
Now, whether that belief is accurate or not does not really matter. It just moves the goals AND causes concern amongst the mom-and-pop shops out there.
It isn't whether mom-and-pop shops can afford the new certificates.
It's whether they'll be allowed to purchase them.
That's because sole proprietorships, general partnerships and individuals won't be eligible for the new, stricter security certificates that Microsoft requires to display the color.
The higher up your position, the looser the limits on your 'expense account'--not everyone would eat caviar and live on 5000 acre estates.
Yes, those in charge always get the best. Even if it is just square footage for your personal, private usage.
Rather than paying out of pocket or being limited to a fixed wage, a person could simply use his account to make purchases. If someone got out of hand with their spending, it would pop up a red flag for review.
How would someone "get out of hand with their spending"?
With the replicators, there's no real scarcity. Except personal, private space. If I want something that can be replicated, why would there be a problem if I wanted 10 of them? 100 of them? 1,000 of them?
And who determines the limits? That certainly sounds like old Soviet-style "Communism".
Any people abusing this would be restricted from purchasing "luxury" items of any sort--only housing, utilities, food, etc. would be covered and all other charges would be rejected (like maxing out a credit card)....the emergency car repair... unexpected medical expense... insurance, people could simply enjoy "free" medical care, using just checkups for the healthy and more extensive treatment for the ill.
"Socialized" medicine, housing, diet, transportation, etc.
So, a very basic, guaranteed lifestyle for those at the bottom of the ladder. With additional perks/freedoms as you move up.
All restricted and doled out by... someone... at the top.
And all that despite there being no real limitation on material possessions because of the replicators.
Nobody is proposing to do DRM that depends on machine clocks. Simply releasing the decryption key after a period of time is quite easy.
Considering that the time period under discussion is several decades long, that would depend entirely upon a company maintaining those keys, not losing those keys and still being available to release those keys after all those years.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I don't see any problems there.[/sarcasm]
This is a failure of current DRM schemes, not DRM in general. It would be easy enough to design DRM so that the DRM no longer applies after a certain date.
Which would require the date to be locked on the machines so I cannot defeat it by simply moving the date ahead 100 years.
I can say this study is wholly and completely inaccurate.
It depends upon what they are measuring.
From TFA:
The biggest challenge for software companies was they could not build development teams fast enough in the United States because of a shortage of both engineers and H-1B visas, Thomas said. Offshoring provided a way to leverage existing developer teams, he said.
Notice the usage of "H-1B visas" in that statement? That tells you what they're actually looking for. Cheap labour. The cheaper, the better.
The question isn't whether there are enough H-1B visas available.
The question is how many programmers are there in the US vs how many programming jobs there are in the US.
I'm not seeing that question being asked. All I'm seeing is stuff on savings and such. If they're measuring cost savings, then they're not going to find any lost jobs, are they?
It was written and animated and shown PRIOR to the WTC attack in 2001. Pay particular attention to who is mentioned at the end.
And what is security? Is it objective or subjective? How would you measure security? Statistics? If your plane doesn't crash, does that mean it was safe? If your software hasn't been cracked, does that mean it is secure?
Security is the process of evaluating threats and reducing their effectiveness.
I have long said that security is not a state of being, but a state of mind.
I would say that it is neither. It is a process. If you stop working at it, you are no longer secure.
In which case "Security Theatre" is exactly what you are selling. Consider, for instance, the difference between making it "more difficult" to hijack a plane and making it "impossible" to do so.
Why? I'm not talking about making anything "impossible". I'm talking about identifying the potential threats and taking steps to reduce their effectiveness.
If something does not reduce their effectiveness, it does not improve the security.
No matter what anyone "feels" about it.
If it is a question of degrees between 'secure' and 'insecure' and as you apply more 'security' you move along the spectrum, at what point have you done enough? When you are secure, or when you feel secure?
Again, I'm talking about whether a specific requirement improves the security or does not. Requiring ID in this instance does not.
In principle I don't disagree with you. It would certainly be nice if we could focus on problems rather than symptoms. Yet in social constructs you often need to evaluate when 'feelings' are a symptom, or when they are they problem themselves.
No. If that were so then we could hand out "magic security rocks" and skip things like baggage inspection. People would "feel" secure... but they would not BE secure.
This is not about how someone "feels". This is about whether a requirement reduces a threat. Requiring ID's in this situation does not reduce the threat.
Please enumerate exact suggestions for improvement, and why you feel the suggestion is not currently being implemented.
First off, look at the issues LOGICALLY. What are the threats? How are they carried out?
#1. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles. Solution - Stronger flightdeck doors. They should be strong enough to defeat a hijacker for at least 15 minutes so that the pilot can notify the authorities and land somewhere. There, you will no longer have the threat of airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles. A whole class of threats are removed with one change.
#2. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and flown to other countries. Solution - More undercover security on the planes.
#3. Threat - Airplanes being blown up with bombs. Solution - Improve bomb detection at the entrances (including overwatch of baggage handlers).
Spend some time reading "Attack trees" by Bruce Schneier.
But no, it's actually still important to keep weapons, explosives, and so on, off the planes and out of the cargo holds to begin with.
I did not say that it was not important.
What I said was that the current practices do NOT make it any more difficult to smuggle weapons or bombs onto a plane now than in 2000.
It might be to you, but there are a lot of people who argue that the security that was already in place before 9/11 was "security theater", too.
And a lot of it was. But because it was then does not excuse it being so now.
What doesn't set well with us, no matter how statistically insignificant overall, is people dying in large numbers.
You are wrong. People die on the roads every day and yet most of us still have no problem driving.
What we don't tolerate, no matter how statistically miniscule, is people intentionally killing other Americans, even still feeling so strongly after having lived in our own society and culture for months or years.
No. The problem is how the media hype the statistically minuscule threats BECAUSE THEY ARE STATISTICALLY MINUSCULE.
They are news because they are NEWS. Someone dying in a car wreck MAY make the local news. But that's it. It's common. It happens. Just about everyone knows of someone who died that way. It is not NEWS.
To be news there has to be an element of uniqueness to it.
Just like those people won't understand change they can't see, others likely will continue to doubt that there are and have been massive initiatives to improve security, communication, and intelligence at all levels, security "theater" aside.
And what the fuck does THAT have to do with this discussion?
I'm talking about security and what does and does not improve security. And how wasting money on practices that cause false positives is a NEGATIVE for security.
You've gone off on some tangent about what some people "understand".
You seem to be advocating Security Theatre because it makes people feel "good" even if it makes them less safe.
It's about the perception of security, and people demanded it.
That is known as "Security Theatre". It is useless. It wastes money. That money could better be spent on improving the security.
Do you really think the government - no matter who was in office - could have gotten away with making NO CHANGES to air security after 9/11?
The changes that have been made have NOT improved the security. It's all theatrics. You are as vulnerable today to a bomb going off on a plane as you were in 2000.
Can you imagine how that would play in the press, or if there was ever any other event, ever? Look at me with a straight face, and tell me that they could have reasonably done nothing to improve security, either real or perceived, or a combination of the two.
You might want to look up "straw man" because I am not saying that "nothing" should be done.
I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.
I'm saying that wasting money/time on theatrics is a NEGATIVE because that means there is less money/time to spend on REAL security improvements.
I'm saying that every false positive is a FAILURE of the system and a DETRIMENT because it makes it that much more likely that a future true positive will be mistaken in the sea of false positives.
Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?
So that it won't turn into a "gold rush" with lots of "squatters" fighting over it. If someone has already gone to the effort to develop whitehouse.com as a porn site, then why not make it easier for everyone and give them first shot at whitehouse.xxx?
If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.
Adding a new TLD will also move "a bunch of cash" to the "new registrar". The only question is who will provide that cash.
And it does "expand the name space". It is a new TLD. Go ahead and register slashdot.xxx if you want to. But I'd still prefer to give CmdrTaco first shot at it.
What you probably meant is that it won't add any new porn sites. That is probably correct. But it really does not matter. Anyone who wants to set up a porn site right now can do so.
All this will do is allow the legitimate porn sites to redirect their sites to the.xxx domain and make it easier for schools and such to block them.
It won't solve the whole problem, but it will allow the legitimate porn sites to "protect the children" without subjecting them to squatters trying to drive up the price.
Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Profiting once, maybe.
Twice, well
Three times? Get the warrants and taps.
This is where "data mining" would come in. You know the stocks, you know who profited, you just have to find the connections. Even if the SEC cannot handle it, the FBI should be able to.
Really, this should be the easiest to crack. Someone has to take the money. Or some company which then turns it over to some person. The SEC should be busting these left and right.
No, let's look at cars. The heavy equipment that usually takes a new driver a few months to "master".
And yet tens of thousands of people are KILLED while operating these every year. And I'm not even talking about crippling injuries, non-crippling injuries or property damage.
The fact is that even when their LIFE IS AT RISK people fail to handle the technology they have correctly. Even after being trained on it.
So why would they spend more time and effort learning how to program effectively?
Yep, we see that every few years. Strangely enough, it coincides with the latest new "paradigm".
I blame Star Trek. People want technology to be magically easy to configure and re-purpose. But it isn't. Computers don't "think" like people do and it takes a lot of work for a person to think the way a computer does.
Being pretty much accurate for most of the data most of the time is what you get when the untrained person attempts it.
Given my past experience with the high quality of Symantec products we'll be switching to clay tablets and cuneiform.
In the long run, it will be easier and more cost effective.
... but with a different Congress ... suddenly it's going back to the court with warrants and everything?
Makes you kind of wonder how "legal" it was in the first place. And whether this is just an attempt to avoid an investigation.
There should not be ANY inquiries that you did not specifically authorize.
There are lots of circumstances where a company will ask for your authorization to pull your report. Renting, credit app, loan app, etc. But you should have authorized each of those.
If other people are pulling your report, that is a HUGE problem because your report has information about account numbers, balances and just about everything they'd need for "identity theft".
When you finally join the business world, you'll learn a few things:
#1. It's all about time and money.
#2. Time is money.
#3. Therefore, it's all about the money.
Unless you're an IT company, IT is a loss. IT sucks profits from the company. The best IT can hope to accomplish is to make the jobs of the people who do bring in the money easy enough that they can bring in MORE money that at least balances the cost of IT.
That means you focus MOST of your efforts where you will have the MOST improvement in that.
That is the "understanding and communicating with people" answer that will get you hired and keep you employed. If you can increase profits 10x, 20x, 50x, 100x the amount you're being paid, you're a "success".
That "noob" who doesn't know anything about computers needs to be incredibly valuable to the company for your example to work. I'm not saying that the situation cannot happen. I'm saying that you'll have more instances where doubling the company's profitability will be more important than helping the "noob" learn how to operate a computer, on company time, at the company's expense, using company equipment and eating up your hours.
Let's look at this from a different perspective, okay?
What would a shop owner expect as an answer from a mechanic applicant?
Owner: "What do you think of customers who know absolutely nothing about cars?"
Mechanic: "I think they'll probably cause a lot of damage to their vehicles which means we'll make a lot of money doing the repairs."
How about a dentist?
Owner: "What do you think of customers who know absolutely nothing about tooth care?"
Mechanic: "I think they'll probably cause a lot of damage to their teeth which means we'll make a lot of money doing the repairs. Do we have literature I can recommend to them?"
See? The difference is whether the USER is paying for their ignorance or the COMPANY is paying.
In the case of tech support, in most cases (unless you're a contractor/consultant) it is the company that is paying the price. It's easy to be VERY nice when you're looking at a disaster that you'll be paid a couple of thousand dollars to fix.
It's completely different when you're looking at a disaster that will require you to work 60+ hours this week
Mechanic: "Honey, I'll be home really late but I'm making at butt-load of money! We'll party this weekend."
IT Tech: "Honey, I'll be home really late. I know. No, there's nothing I can do. Yes, I know. I know."
A single 500KB message is not a problem.
I have over 10,000 messages in my mail box. Now you can see the problem? And I'm just one person. On a network, this can quickly become a major issue.
Think of the problem with 1,000 employees, with 5,000-10,000 messages each at a company.
Not to mention that spammers love this because they can get this past the spam filters very easily.
Are you using links back to website for the graphics, which break in certain email apps ... or are you including the graphics in the email, thus making the email messages very large?
Now Microsoft will have TWO HTML renderers to debug and maintain. They had enough trouble with one.
Now we'll see exploits for IE and exploits for Outlook's renderer.
They've made the rendering part of the OS. If you cannot replace it with a different one, at least all of their apps should rely upon the same, built-in, OS functionality.
There is a limited amount of air available on Earth
For a limit to have an effect on demand, that limit has to be noticeable.
And if there is a limit, then there is someone deciding how to apportion that limited resource. Which gets back to Soviet-style "Communism". Particularly since there is no "money" and it's difficult to store "energy" by hiding it under your mattress.
You never hear of anyone "saving up" for a large purchase or being "poor" after a large expenditure. Everyone in Star Fleet has everything they want, when they want it and for their exclusive, personal, private usage.
That depends upon how you mean that.
If I get a certificate issued to server "apple" at "berry.com" with address 123.456.789.012, then that is all that you know from that certificate. The server's resolved name and address match the server name and address for which that certificate was issued.
But that is all you know. That means that that certificate cannot be moved to a different server. Even one owned by that same company.
But it tells you nothing about whether the site is who "it's claiming to be".
Example:
A phishing site can claim to be from Bank of America and have a legitimate certificate issued to server1.BoA-security.com. But it would not be a Bank of America site.
This new plan attempts to deal with that issue by making "green" certificates available
Now, whether that belief is accurate or not does not really matter. It just moves the goals AND causes concern amongst the mom-and-pop shops out there.
It's whether they'll be allowed to purchase them.
Yes, those in charge always get the best. Even if it is just square footage for your personal, private usage.
How would someone "get out of hand with their spending"?
With the replicators, there's no real scarcity. Except personal, private space. If I want something that can be replicated, why would there be a problem if I wanted 10 of them? 100 of them? 1,000 of them?
And who determines the limits? That certainly sounds like old Soviet-style "Communism".
"Socialized" medicine, housing, diet, transportation, etc.
So, a very basic, guaranteed lifestyle for those at the bottom of the ladder. With additional perks/freedoms as you move up.
All restricted and doled out by
And all that despite there being no real limitation on material possessions because of the replicators.
Considering that the time period under discussion is several decades long, that would depend entirely upon a company maintaining those keys, not losing those keys and still being available to release those keys after all those years.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I don't see any problems there.[/sarcasm]
Which would require the date to be locked on the machines so I cannot defeat it by simply moving the date ahead 100 years.
It depends upon what they are measuring.
From TFA:
Notice the usage of "H-1B visas" in that statement? That tells you what they're actually looking for. Cheap labour. The cheaper, the better.
The question isn't whether there are enough H-1B visas available.
The question is how many programmers are there in the US vs how many programming jobs there are in the US.
I'm not seeing that question being asked. All I'm seeing is stuff on savings and such. If they're measuring cost savings, then they're not going to find any lost jobs, are they?
SCO wanted to be bought by IBM. That would be a "good thing" for SCO. Their stock jumps and their executives all cash out more options.
IBM should crush SCO in court and be awarded whatever is left of the company as compensation.
If IBM gives up any money to SCO or SCO executives, IBM has lost and will be sued again over this same kind of crap.
It was written and animated and shown PRIOR to the WTC attack in 2001. Pay particular attention to who is mentioned at the end.
Security is the process of evaluating threats and reducing their effectiveness.
I would say that it is neither. It is a process. If you stop working at it, you are no longer secure.
Why? I'm not talking about making anything "impossible". I'm talking about identifying the potential threats and taking steps to reduce their effectiveness.
If something does not reduce their effectiveness, it does not improve the security.
No matter what anyone "feels" about it.
Again, I'm talking about whether a specific requirement improves the security or does not. Requiring ID in this instance does not.
No. If that were so then we could hand out "magic security rocks" and skip things like baggage inspection. People would "feel" secure
This is not about how someone "feels". This is about whether a requirement reduces a threat. Requiring ID's in this situation does not reduce the threat.
First off, look at the issues LOGICALLY. What are the threats? How are they carried out?
#1. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles.
Solution - Stronger flightdeck doors. They should be strong enough to defeat a hijacker for at least 15 minutes so that the pilot can notify the authorities and land somewhere. There, you will no longer have the threat of airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles. A whole class of threats are removed with one change.
#2. Threat - Airplanes being hijacked and flown to other countries.
Solution - More undercover security on the planes.
#3. Threat - Airplanes being blown up with bombs.
Solution - Improve bomb detection at the entrances (including overwatch of baggage handlers).
Spend some time reading "Attack trees" by Bruce Schneier.
I did not say that it was not important.
What I said was that the current practices do NOT make it any more difficult to smuggle weapons or bombs onto a plane now than in 2000.
And a lot of it was. But because it was then does not excuse it being so now.
You are wrong. People die on the roads every day and yet most of us still have no problem driving.
No. The problem is how the media hype the statistically minuscule threats BECAUSE THEY ARE STATISTICALLY MINUSCULE.
They are news because they are NEWS. Someone dying in a car wreck MAY make the local news. But that's it. It's common. It happens. Just about everyone knows of someone who died that way. It is not NEWS.
To be news there has to be an element of uniqueness to it.
And what the fuck does THAT have to do with this discussion?
I'm talking about security and what does and does not improve security. And how wasting money on practices that cause false positives is a NEGATIVE for security.
You've gone off on some tangent about what some people "understand".
You seem to be advocating Security Theatre because it makes people feel "good" even if it makes them less safe.
That is known as "Security Theatre". It is useless. It wastes money. That money could better be spent on improving the security.
The changes that have been made have NOT improved the security. It's all theatrics. You are as vulnerable today to a bomb going off on a plane as you were in 2000.
You might want to look up "straw man" because I am not saying that "nothing" should be done.
I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.
I'm saying that wasting money/time on theatrics is a NEGATIVE because that means there is less money/time to spend on REAL security improvements.
I'm saying that every false positive is a FAILURE of the system and a DETRIMENT because it makes it that much more likely that a future true positive will be mistaken in the sea of false positives.
It is more about preventing people from re-selling their "special discount" non-refundable, non-transferable tickets.
Now the airlines can restrict the use of those tickets to the person who purchased them and enforce that with the ID requirement.
As has been stated, requiring ID does NOTHING for security because the hijackers all had ID.
This is about making more money for the airlines, not making your trip any more secure.
So that it won't turn into a "gold rush" with lots of "squatters" fighting over it. If someone has already gone to the effort to develop whitehouse.com as a porn site, then why not make it easier for everyone and give them first shot at whitehouse.xxx?
Adding a new TLD will also move "a bunch of cash" to the "new registrar". The only question is who will provide that cash.
And it does "expand the name space". It is a new TLD. Go ahead and register slashdot.xxx if you want to. But I'd still prefer to give CmdrTaco first shot at it.
What you probably meant is that it won't add any new porn sites. That is probably correct. But it really does not matter. Anyone who wants to set up a porn site right now can do so.
All this will do is allow the legitimate porn sites to redirect their sites to the
It won't solve the whole problem, but it will allow the legitimate porn sites to "protect the children" without subjecting them to squatters trying to drive up the price.
Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead.