No, a web browser doesn't need to do most of what you have listed. In fact, it probably shouldn't be doing most of what you listed.
Web browsers need to display text, and maybe pictures. None of the rest of that stuff is needed. JavaScript, Flash, playing video and audio, plug-ins, spellchecker, etc. just aren't necessary and just leads to people use the browser to do things is just isn't suited to do. Even Java is iffy when it is used to run applications in the browser.
People treat the browser as their best, if not only, tool and use it even when it is not appropriate, much like using a hammer to drive screws.
The producing the content has a cost, and that cost has to be paid for some how. Why should anyone get the content for free when the content costs money to produce?
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is? The letter of the law seems fairly clear and the intent seems to be clear cut as well.
So, please post a detailed description of what you think the intent of the law is and reference that back to the letter of the law and explain how this in-duh-vidual did not break the intent of the law while breaking the letter of the law.
A) Please point out where in my statement I use the word "secured" or the word "unsecured". B) You still have not answered my question, but rather given a snide remark.
If you don't want to be extradited to another country for breaking said country's laws, he is doing it wrong.
Someone, please explain to me why the President of the United States should intervene and prevent the prosecution of someone accused of committing a crime against the United State.
His actions crossed national boundaries. The server accessed resides in the United States, even if he was in " the comfort of the living room of my suburban castle thousands of miles away". As the server resides in the U.S., the U.S. has a claim to jurisdiction and requested extradition.
The British government could have ruled that it had jurisdiction and prosecuted the case themselves. But, they didn't.
But, none of that abrogates the fact that HE DID IT AND ADMITS TO DOING IT.
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is? The letter of the law seems fairly clear and the intent seems to be clear cut as well.
So, please post a detailed description of what you think the intent of the law is and reference that back to the letter of the law and explain how this in-duh-vidual did not break the intent of the law while breaking the letter of the law.
Tell me, did you even look at the unedited picture? There is nothing misleading about the picture. What is missing in the picture are some blank screens. That is right, that added elements are covering up nothing. I really don't see why the picture was changed and the edited version didn't help BP "take care of its image" let alone improve it. The effect of the picture would have been the same if the original had been used. In fact, I think the original might even be a bit better than the edited version.
This has nothing to do with the impact of the spill. It has everything to do with people blowing this WAY out of proportion.
The reason Stewart interviews such people is that he is hosting a POLITICAL comedy show. Those politicos he gets to interview want to show they are human and have a sense of humor. Leno, Letterman, etc. are general talk shows and do not focus on politics.
The fact that TDS viewers come away better informed than viewers of non satirical news programs is sad
A) That is not a fact B) What makes you think TDS viewers come away better informed, besides the fact that you agree with the opinions expressed on TDS?
They edited the photo to put images on some blank screens. Ooohh, what an evil thing. I say we round them all up and shoot them for this horrible breech. I swear this is on par with that guy who added bombs and smoke and stuff to that Israel bombing Hamas picture. Yes, covering blank screens is even worse than that!/sarcasm
That stupid rag that reports on nothing but Washington insider back-biting?
Yes, and what you are missing is that it is pretty easy to report on that particular subject if you have a few contacts because those insiders want to get their side out first. The politico is not what one would call extensive investigative journalism, rather it is simple reporting. If people are burning out quickly doing that, what do you think is happening to people trying to do actual journalism.
If those 20 years were so horrible, why hasn't some other company or operating system overtaken Microsoft and Windows? There is Apple. There is Redhat. There is Canonical and Ubuntu.
Why hasn't someone unseated Microsoft if things have been horrible for 20 years?
AP and Rueters get a good portion of their income from newspapers and magazines. What happens when said newspapers and magazines demand that either AP and Rueters stop making articles freely available or the newspapers and magazine get the articles for free?
Will AP and Rueters listen to non-paying readers or to paying customers?
Content: All services provided by BurstNET Technologies, Inc.(TM) may be used for lawful purposes only. Transmission, storage, or presentation of any information, data or material in violation of any United States Federal, State or City law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: copyrighted material, material we judge to be threatening or obscene, unlicensed software or files, or material protected by trade secret and other statue
Emphasis added.
Now, FTFA:
some of the blogs it was hosting contained information on al-Qaeda hit lists and bomb making.
I think it is safe to say that a hit list is threatening. Therefore, he violated the contract. Thanks for playing and stop lying by omission.
Re:Why is there no cost/benefit analysis?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
If you would love to see the numbers on that, why don't you get busy doing it?
The "entry level of clearance" is NoForN, No Foreign Nationals. Then, there is Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret - Special Compartmentalized Information, etc.
TS, while not the highest, is one of the highest and not the easy to get.
And, it isn't "entry level", it is lowest level. Assuming one passes the investigations, one can receive any level of clearance upon entry.
Slashdot Mirror
No, a web browser doesn't need to do most of what you have listed. In fact, it probably shouldn't be doing most of what you listed.
Web browsers need to display text, and maybe pictures. None of the rest of that stuff is needed. JavaScript, Flash, playing video and audio, plug-ins, spellchecker, etc. just aren't necessary and just leads to people use the browser to do things is just isn't suited to do. Even Java is iffy when it is used to run applications in the browser.
People treat the browser as their best, if not only, tool and use it even when it is not appropriate, much like using a hammer to drive screws.
The producing the content has a cost, and that cost has to be paid for some how. Why should anyone get the content for free when the content costs money to produce?
Do you get it now?
A) Please point out where in my statement I use the word "secured" or the word "unsecured".
B) You still have not answered my question, but rather given a snide remark.
If you don't want to be extradited to another country for breaking said country's laws, he is doing it wrong.
Now, answer the question I asked originally.
If you are not going to answer the question asked, why bother answering at all?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers. He admits he accessed the computers without authorization.
Now, how about answering the question I actually asked instead of just spouting off?
Someone, please explain to me why the President of the United States should intervene and prevent the prosecution of someone accused of committing a crime against the United State.
His actions crossed national boundaries. The server accessed resides in the United States, even if he was in " the comfort of the living room of my suburban castle thousands of miles away". As the server resides in the U.S., the U.S. has a claim to jurisdiction and requested extradition.
The British government could have ruled that it had jurisdiction and prosecuted the case themselves. But, they didn't.
But, none of that abrogates the fact that HE DID IT AND ADMITS TO DOING IT.
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is? The letter of the law seems fairly clear and the intent seems to be clear cut as well.
So, please post a detailed description of what you think the intent of the law is and reference that back to the letter of the law and explain how this in-duh-vidual did not break the intent of the law while breaking the letter of the law.
Exactly what was misleading about the image?
Tell me, did you even look at the unedited picture? There is nothing misleading about the picture. What is missing in the picture are some blank screens. That is right, that added elements are covering up nothing. I really don't see why the picture was changed and the edited version didn't help BP "take care of its image" let alone improve it. The effect of the picture would have been the same if the original had been used. In fact, I think the original might even be a bit better than the edited version.
This has nothing to do with the impact of the spill. It has everything to do with people blowing this WAY out of proportion.
The reason Stewart interviews such people is that he is hosting a POLITICAL comedy show. Those politicos he gets to interview want to show they are human and have a sense of humor. Leno, Letterman, etc. are general talk shows and do not focus on politics.
A) That is not a fact
B) What makes you think TDS viewers come away better informed, besides the fact that you agree with the opinions expressed on TDS?
They edited the photo to put images on some blank screens. Ooohh, what an evil thing. I say we round them all up and shoot them for this horrible breech. I swear this is on par with that guy who added bombs and smoke and stuff to that Israel bombing Hamas picture. Yes, covering blank screens is even worse than that! /sarcasm
Would you people please get a fucking grip?
I doubt very much that they were making thousands a day on ad revenue. If that were the case, then there would be no need for a paywall.
The Daily Show is not journalism. It is satirical comedy and that is all.
Hello. I am from the federal government and we would like to talk to you about the bribes you paid in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act.
Meanwhile, you spent $25,000 to write the article, so you have just lost $24,000
Yes, and what you are missing is that it is pretty easy to report on that particular subject if you have a few contacts because those insiders want to get their side out first. The politico is not what one would call extensive investigative journalism, rather it is simple reporting. If people are burning out quickly doing that, what do you think is happening to people trying to do actual journalism.
If those 20 years were so horrible, why hasn't some other company or operating system overtaken Microsoft and Windows? There is Apple. There is Redhat. There is Canonical and Ubuntu.
Why hasn't someone unseated Microsoft if things have been horrible for 20 years?
AP and Rueters get a good portion of their income from newspapers and magazines. What happens when said newspapers and magazines demand that either AP and Rueters stop making articles freely available or the newspapers and magazine get the articles for free?
Will AP and Rueters listen to non-paying readers or to paying customers?
They are saving on servers, bandwidth, etc. so who knows, it may even out.
But, it does not require a court order or Patriot Act request for the take down to be legal. That is where you fail.
You need to keep reading. From exhibit B
Content: All services provided by BurstNET Technologies, Inc.(TM) may be used for lawful purposes only. Transmission, storage, or presentation of any information, data or material in violation of any United States Federal, State or City law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: copyrighted material, material we judge to be threatening or obscene, unlicensed software or files, or material protected by trade secret and other statue
Emphasis added.
Now, FTFA:
I think it is safe to say that a hit list is threatening. Therefore, he violated the contract. Thanks for playing and stop lying by omission.
If you would love to see the numbers on that, why don't you get busy doing it?
Um, no.
The "entry level of clearance" is NoForN, No Foreign Nationals. Then, there is Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret - Special Compartmentalized Information, etc.
TS, while not the highest, is one of the highest and not the easy to get.
And, it isn't "entry level", it is lowest level. Assuming one passes the investigations, one can receive any level of clearance upon entry.