The biggest investors in alternative energy research are the major oil companies. The people controlling the fossil fuel based markets are not stupid. They know alternative energy usage will continue to grow in the future. They know all the money they spend on alternative energy development can be recouped by the tax credits the government hands out to companies investing in alternative energy related projects. They all have enough cash and political power to make sure they can eventually control and profit from the emerging alternative energy markets the same way they control the fossil fuel markets.
"Would that have a chilling effect on free speech?" No. At least not in the US. Some of the most incendiary public speech in the history of the country has been documented in one format or another and distributed to the widest audience possible. Today the Internet has made capturing a large audience easy and fast. The people testing the limits of their 1st amendment rights go out of their way to draw attention to themselves and their statements.
"how can we even be talking about attacking another nation under the table" Nations have been attacking one another "under the table" since the dawn of civilization. Some are just better than others when it comes to gathering intelligence and running counter intelligence operations. And foreign intelligence operations are not unconstitutional. The key word being "foreign". The only rule when conducting foreign intelligence operations is don't get caught. That's why everyone's foreign embassies are staffed with intelligence officers who manage and conduct HUMINT operations against the host country. If something goes awry they are covered under diplomatic immunity.
Ireland gave tax breaks to lure foreign investment in their country while also creating jobs for their citizens. In the US states and municipalities try to attract companies using the same method. It was done openly. This also was not illegal or prohibited by the EU myriad of laws and rules. In this case the EU bureaucrats and paper pushers are trying to re-interpret the existing rules covering this situation and then apply penalties retroactively.
It's a pretty accurate statement. We don't need more languages we need better programmers. Bad programming is more to blame for both security and performance problems and not the languages themselves. And some of the bad programming practices we see today is the result of developers jumping from one trendy language to the next while never taking the time to become proficient in any of them.
While all these ideas sound like fun there is one minor complication. There have only been 533 humans who have actually made it into earth orbit over the last 50 years. Of those only 24 made it past low earth orbit. Getting to orbit is also not for the faint of heart and while a lot of people would accept the danger how many of them would be willing or able to pay a few million dollars for the trip?
They also did not mention the journalists had just been dragged out of their hotel by armed militants so they could film and document the attack going on a few blocks over.
You are missing the point. This ruling against Cox can now be used to hit every other provider of ISP providers. Doesn't matter if the provider is good or bad. If the ruling stands you can expect some draconian measures put into place by the service providers which will ultimately end up denying service from anyone who even looks like they may be violating copyrights. Won't matter whether they are or not. The bar would be set very low by the ISP to insure they don't get fined or sued later. They would also send the copyright holder the information on the customer. Not only would the customer lose their ISP they would also be fending off the copyright owners looking for payment.
"TOR has failed in its primary mission of permitting free speech." TOR's primary mission was creating a secure messaging framework for classified military communications. The government didn't implement TOR so they gave everything over to a civilian foundation and continued to funding the project.
A vote for Trump would be a vote against Democrats, Republicans, and the biased media who fall all over themselves trying to elect anyone who would validate their editorial lines. A vote for Trump means there will be a whole bunch of rich people and companies who will see the billions of dollars they have pumped into their candidate of choice has been wasted. The Democrats and Republicans need a serious timeout to reflect on how bad they have fucked up the country.
The office of the President doesn't allow any candidate to actually accomplish anything they say while campaigning. The policies Trump speaks about cannot be dictated by the President. Trump is hated by both Democrats and Republicans equally. Does anyone see Congress approving anything Trump asks for? Dissolution of signed international treaty's cannot be abrogated by the President alone. Even declaring a war needs to be justified and unless someone lobs a few nukes at the US the legislative branch will never fund a war. For all those wishing the US would stop wasting money protecting foreign ingrates then Trump is your man. If he was to even come close to exceeding his Presidential authority he would be impeached in an afternoon since he has no party support. Anyone wanting to see a President tell some foreign leader to fuck off and defend themselves on their own dime than Trump is your man. The bottom line is a President cannot destroy a country without help from lots of others in the Legislative and Judicial branches.
"civil judgment under this subsection" Civil judgment means the case has been adjudicated in criminal or civil court proceedings before any penalties as imposed. This allows an individual to contest the charges in court. However, this new bill is part of the Patriot Act. The government has tried to use provisions in the Patriot Act twice to prosecute a defendant. In both cases the judge threw out the governments case on constitutional grounds. The government has never attempted to use the Patriot Act since then because of fear that the entire Patriot Act could be declared unconstitutional. There's a reason the government is fighting so hard to keep the residents of Gitmo out of the US court system. Congress can pass any law they want using in-house council to vet the legality of the proposed law which is mostly a rubber stamp process. To challenge the law requires someone to actually be charged under the law and then the law can be challenged in court. Then the process of vetting the law can be moved up the judicial ladder usually ending up in the Supreme Court when constitutional issues are involved. If the government passes an unconstitutional law but never uses it against anyone it becomes meaningless. If you want to complain about something that actually matters try wrapping your head around the powers that the IRS has had for a long time. The government can access the IRS databases anytime they want without a warrant of any type. The IRS also has the ability to seize assets, levy fines, and even put people in jail for tax fraud.
If they did do it I would call it beginners luck. However, just because Iran said they brought it down doesn't mean they are telling the truth. Remember these are the same idiots who tried to pass off a model plane as their new stealth jet fighter. And the US has flown thousands of drone sorties in that part of the world and if Iran could actually do what they claim there would be drones falling out of the sky all over the place.
The thing is she did not accept the risk and instead did everything in her power to convince anyone who would listen that her actions were not risky. What's scary is that she probably never even recognized the risk in the first place.
"Apple has been tying its products together for years:" They have been doing this since day one. There are just more products today. This business model was almost their undoing back in the mid 90's. They were within weeks of bankruptcy when MS invested $150 million which allowed Apple to consolidate their Mac business and put their cash flow into the iPod and iTunes products and the rest is history.
The law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners are the ones who are ultimately tasked with upholding their gun rights. The efforts of the NRA just represent the non-violent method of upholding gun rights. And unlike the corporate lobbyists the NRA doesn't buy political support with money they buy political support with the number of voters they can deliver at election time. The anti-gun crowd is shrill at times and relish turning every gun related death into an extinction level event but they are vastly outnumbered by gun owners who only need to vote when they feel their gun ownership rights are being reduced.
All of the US trade agreements include a provision which forces foreign trading partners honor US copyrights if they want to continue trading with the US.
"Maybe the time is here to step up and create our own solutions for better security" There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this right now. There are 3 main areas that will need to be addressed to create better security. The first area would be the hardware This includes the data communication infrastructure and making sure any devices connected to a network can support the new security paradigm. If implementing better security model requires the replacement of routers, firewall appliances, and basically any other piece of connected hardware the cost would be staggering. Software would be the next area and this would be the easiest and relatively cheapest area to implement the new security related changes. And finally the most difficult and most likely impossible area is the users. And by users I would include system administrators, developers, and the general public user base. It is possible now to secure your systems and encrypt your data communications to the point that it would take a substantial effort by the government to access.
So you think they would release all the source code and put future enhancements and bug fixes in the hands of a public foundation just so they could play the old security through obscurity game? This would also imply that there is a way to compromise the TOR security model so they need to hide their traffic. If the US government knows how to compromise TOR you can be pretty sure other governments can do it as well. The government computer security capabilities are an embarrassment. They can't secure their systems, granted most of the breeches and data disclosers have been released by insiders. They have no internal cooperation between all the various governmental and military agencies. Every thing from e-mail, civilian database servers, and even some drone communication systems have been publicly breeched over the past 10 years. And that doesn't even count all the compromises that were never disclosed publically. The government has a hell of a lot more to lose than your average citizen does when it comes to poor computer security. The public should be more concerned about all the criminal syndicates who hack systems to steal and profit. Those guys are evidently the best computer security gurus on the planet seeing as no one can stop them. All the high dollar security research companies do little more than conduct a post mortem analysis after the damage is done and add a few new signatures to the virus and malware scanners.
No, the discussion was about building a more secure Internet alternative than exists today. It doesn't matter what protocol you use because any protocol can be compromised just like the protocols used today. And I never said Arpanet was being built to survive a war it was network package switching technology that was used in the first generation of routers that could continue to process data traffic if some of it's nodes went down. War could possibly cause this but natural disasters, sabotage, equipment failure, and power outages could take down network nodes.
The ARPANET packet switching technology combined with the TCP/IP protocol created the technical foundation of the Internet.
ARPANET stands for the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the United States Department of Defense. DARPA stands for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Both ARPANET and DARPA are funded by military and national defense budgets. ARPANET and the technology built on top of that early research has provided benefits to both the public and military sectors. No doubt the US military makes full use of these technologies so claiming the research was not for "war" is wrong.
You think the government doesn't monitor the dark web? I think they would allocate sufficient resources to monitoring the dark web out of the belief that anything going on there has a good chance of being illegal. And the US Naval Research laboratories created TOR looking for a secure way of transmitting highly encrypted military communications. They released their work to the general public because it did not meet their stated goals. Just like DARPA did the initial research to create a distributed network that could continue to operate if pieces of the network was destroyed. This little project was also released into the public domain and was eventually called the internet. Anyone, and I mean anyone can build their own version of the internet any time they want. All they would need is billions of dollars, some how create the mythical secure network, and then get anyone to actually use it. If want to save some time and money by piggybacking on the existing infrastructure they would still be susceptible to the same security problem the internet has to deal with. And think about this. The general public may be susceptible to government misuse but the government is even more susceptible to having the Internet used against them. It's painfully evident that the government has no clue on how to build a secure system but no one in the public domain can do it either.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest investors in alternative energy research are the major oil companies. The people controlling the fossil fuel based markets are not stupid. They know alternative energy usage will continue to grow in the future. They know all the money they spend on alternative energy development can be recouped by the tax credits the government hands out to companies investing in alternative energy related projects. They all have enough cash and political power to make sure they can eventually control and profit from the emerging alternative energy markets the same way they control the fossil fuel markets.
"Would that have a chilling effect on free speech?" No. At least not in the US. Some of the most incendiary public speech in the history of the country has been documented in one format or another and distributed to the widest audience possible. Today the Internet has made capturing a large audience easy and fast. The people testing the limits of their 1st amendment rights go out of their way to draw attention to themselves and their statements.
"how can we even be talking about attacking another nation under the table"
Nations have been attacking one another "under the table" since the dawn of civilization. Some are just better than others when it comes to gathering intelligence and running counter intelligence operations. And foreign intelligence operations are not unconstitutional. The key word being "foreign". The only rule when conducting foreign intelligence operations is don't get caught. That's why everyone's foreign embassies are staffed with intelligence officers who manage and conduct HUMINT operations against the host country. If something goes awry they are covered under diplomatic immunity.
The US bought Alaska from the Russians for 7.2 million dollars fair and square. Was that not the real estate deal of the century?
Ireland gave tax breaks to lure foreign investment in their country while also creating jobs for their citizens. In the US states and municipalities try to attract companies using the same method. It was done openly. This also was not illegal or prohibited by the EU myriad of laws and rules. In this case the EU bureaucrats and paper pushers are trying to re-interpret the existing rules covering this situation and then apply penalties retroactively.
"quakes, pollution, and explosions associated with it" These things are better than dealing with the lovely countries who make up OPEC.
It's a pretty accurate statement. We don't need more languages we need better programmers. Bad programming is more to blame for both security and performance problems and not the languages themselves. And some of the bad programming practices we see today is the result of developers jumping from one trendy language to the next while never taking the time to become proficient in any of them.
While all these ideas sound like fun there is one minor complication. There have only been 533 humans who have actually made it into earth orbit over the last 50 years. Of those only 24 made it past low earth orbit. Getting to orbit is also not for the faint of heart and while a lot of people would accept the danger how many of them would be willing or able to pay a few million dollars for the trip?
They also did not mention the journalists had just been dragged out of their hotel by armed militants so they could film and document the attack going on a few blocks over.
You are missing the point. This ruling against Cox can now be used to hit every other provider of ISP providers. Doesn't matter if the provider is good or bad. If the ruling stands you can expect some draconian measures put into place by the service providers which will ultimately end up denying service from anyone who even looks like they may be violating copyrights. Won't matter whether they are or not. The bar would be set very low by the ISP to insure they don't get fined or sued later. They would also send the copyright holder the information on the customer. Not only would the customer lose their ISP they would also be fending off the copyright owners looking for payment.
"Who but the NSA or possibly GCHQ would produce this" How about the FSB, Mossad, MSS, ISI, or DSG for starters?
"TOR has failed in its primary mission of permitting free speech." TOR's primary mission was creating a secure messaging framework for classified military communications. The government didn't implement TOR so they gave everything over to a civilian foundation and continued to funding the project.
A vote for Trump would be a vote against Democrats, Republicans, and the biased media who fall all over themselves trying to elect anyone who would validate their editorial lines. A vote for Trump means there will be a whole bunch of rich people and companies who will see the billions of dollars they have pumped into their candidate of choice has been wasted. The Democrats and Republicans need a serious timeout to reflect on how bad they have fucked up the country.
The office of the President doesn't allow any candidate to actually accomplish anything they say while campaigning. The policies Trump speaks about cannot be dictated by the President. Trump is hated by both Democrats and Republicans equally. Does anyone see Congress approving anything Trump asks for? Dissolution of signed international treaty's cannot be abrogated by the President alone. Even declaring a war needs to be justified and unless someone lobs a few nukes at the US the legislative branch will never fund a war. For all those wishing the US would stop wasting money protecting foreign ingrates then Trump is your man. If he was to even come close to exceeding his Presidential authority he would be impeached in an afternoon since he has no party support. Anyone wanting to see a President tell some foreign leader to fuck off and defend themselves on their own dime than Trump is your man. The bottom line is a President cannot destroy a country without help from lots of others in the Legislative and Judicial branches.
"civil judgment under this subsection" Civil judgment means the case has been adjudicated in criminal or civil court proceedings before any penalties as imposed. This allows an individual to contest the charges in court. However, this new bill is part of the Patriot Act. The government has tried to use provisions in the Patriot Act twice to prosecute a defendant. In both cases the judge threw out the governments case on constitutional grounds. The government has never attempted to use the Patriot Act since then because of fear that the entire Patriot Act could be declared unconstitutional. There's a reason the government is fighting so hard to keep the residents of Gitmo out of the US court system. Congress can pass any law they want using in-house council to vet the legality of the proposed law which is mostly a rubber stamp process. To challenge the law requires someone to actually be charged under the law and then the law can be challenged in court. Then the process of vetting the law can be moved up the judicial ladder usually ending up in the Supreme Court when constitutional issues are involved. If the government passes an unconstitutional law but never uses it against anyone it becomes meaningless. If you want to complain about something that actually matters try wrapping your head around the powers that the IRS has had for a long time. The government can access the IRS databases anytime they want without a warrant of any type. The IRS also has the ability to seize assets, levy fines, and even put people in jail for tax fraud.
If they did do it I would call it beginners luck. However, just because Iran said they brought it down doesn't mean they are telling the truth. Remember these are the same idiots who tried to pass off a model plane as their new stealth jet fighter. And the US has flown thousands of drone sorties in that part of the world and if Iran could actually do what they claim there would be drones falling out of the sky all over the place.
The thing is she did not accept the risk and instead did everything in her power to convince anyone who would listen that her actions were not risky. What's scary is that she probably never even recognized the risk in the first place.
No doubt. If Apple had folded then MS would have really looked like a monopoly.
"Apple has been tying its products together for years:" They have been doing this since day one. There are just more products today. This business model was almost their undoing back in the mid 90's. They were within weeks of bankruptcy when MS invested $150 million which allowed Apple to consolidate their Mac business and put their cash flow into the iPod and iTunes products and the rest is history.
They could drive down the street and run their daughters over with the car and back up over them just to make sure. Same end result.
The law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners are the ones who are ultimately tasked with upholding their gun rights. The efforts of the NRA just represent the non-violent method of upholding gun rights. And unlike the corporate lobbyists the NRA doesn't buy political support with money they buy political support with the number of voters they can deliver at election time. The anti-gun crowd is shrill at times and relish turning every gun related death into an extinction level event but they are vastly outnumbered by gun owners who only need to vote when they feel their gun ownership rights are being reduced.
All of the US trade agreements include a provision which forces foreign trading partners honor US copyrights if they want to continue trading with the US.
"Maybe the time is here to step up and create our own solutions for better security" There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this right now. There are 3 main areas that will need to be addressed to create better security. The first area would be the hardware This includes the data communication infrastructure and making sure any devices connected to a network can support the new security paradigm. If implementing better security model requires the replacement of routers, firewall appliances, and basically any other piece of connected hardware the cost would be staggering. Software would be the next area and this would be the easiest and relatively cheapest area to implement the new security related changes. And finally the most difficult and most likely impossible area is the users. And by users I would include system administrators, developers, and the general public user base. It is possible now to secure your systems and encrypt your data communications to the point that it would take a substantial effort by the government to access.
So you think they would release all the source code and put future enhancements and bug fixes in the hands of a public foundation just so they could play the old security through obscurity game? This would also imply that there is a way to compromise the TOR security model so they need to hide their traffic. If the US government knows how to compromise TOR you can be pretty sure other governments can do it as well. The government computer security capabilities are an embarrassment. They can't secure their systems, granted most of the breeches and data disclosers have been released by insiders. They have no internal cooperation between all the various governmental and military agencies. Every thing from e-mail, civilian database servers, and even some drone communication systems have been publicly breeched over the past 10 years. And that doesn't even count all the compromises that were never disclosed publically. The government has a hell of a lot more to lose than your average citizen does when it comes to poor computer security. The public should be more concerned about all the criminal syndicates who hack systems to steal and profit. Those guys are evidently the best computer security gurus on the planet seeing as no one can stop them. All the high dollar security research companies do little more than conduct a post mortem analysis after the damage is done and add a few new signatures to the virus and malware scanners.
No, the discussion was about building a more secure Internet alternative than exists today. It doesn't matter what protocol you use because any protocol can be compromised just like the protocols used today. And I never said Arpanet was being built to survive a war it was network package switching technology that was used in the first generation of routers that could continue to process data traffic if some of it's nodes went down. War could possibly cause this but natural disasters, sabotage, equipment failure, and power outages could take down network nodes.
The ARPANET packet switching technology combined with the TCP/IP protocol created the technical foundation of the Internet.
ARPANET stands for the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the United States Department of Defense.
DARPA stands for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Both ARPANET and DARPA are funded by military and national defense budgets. ARPANET and the technology built on top of that early research has provided benefits to both the public and military sectors. No doubt the US military makes full use of these technologies so claiming the research was not for "war" is wrong.
You think the government doesn't monitor the dark web? I think they would allocate sufficient resources to monitoring the dark web out of the belief that anything going on there has a good chance of being illegal. And the US Naval Research laboratories created TOR looking for a secure way of transmitting highly encrypted military communications. They released their work to the general public because it did not meet their stated goals. Just like DARPA did the initial research to create a distributed network that could continue to operate if pieces of the network was destroyed. This little project was also released into the public domain and was eventually called the internet. Anyone, and I mean anyone can build their own version of the internet any time they want. All they would need is billions of dollars, some how create the mythical secure network, and then get anyone to actually use it. If want to save some time and money by piggybacking on the existing infrastructure they would still be susceptible to the same security problem the internet has to deal with. And think about this. The general public may be susceptible to government misuse but the government is even more susceptible to having the Internet used against them. It's painfully evident that the government has no clue on how to build a secure system but no one in the public domain can do it either.