It should be called cyber espionage, and handled as an intelligence issue. Just like there's always spying, there will never be a "cyber peace". Threatening with a counterattack is based on a bad analogy, and doesn't work in this scenario.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud, false witness, lying under oath, all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information, public disturbance, giving pornography to minors, kiddie porn and so on.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, public disturbance
Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.
false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud
Freedom of speech is a human right, corporations are regulated by different laws.
all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information
Most interpretations of free speech don't treat it as inalienable. It only protects you against government censorship, you can sign away some of your free speech rights to a third party. Your lawyer, doctor etc would be liable of breach of contract.
giving pornography to minors
The rights of minors are usually regulated differently, many of them are exercised by their guardians. Their right to do any sort of business (including purchasing stuff) is severely limited. Giving away porn to kids for free isn't illegal. That said, I think that age categories should be more of a guideline than an enforced rule, and it should be the responsibility of the parents to discuss with their child what they should view.
kiddie porn
That would be a problem, yes. But I didn't agree that the radical approach is right, in fact I argued that we need to somewhat restrict free speech in order to enforce copyright. Underage porn should always be another exception. I just believe that these limitations to free speech should only be added when there's no other possibility to prevent harm.
Nobody understands what free speech is for the simple reason that there is no global objective unambigous definition of it. The UDHR first states that everybody has the right to free speech, and then later that said right can be arbitrarily limited for basically any reason (like being hurtful to "public moral"). I was referring to the idealist (or radical) view of free speech that states that the legality of communication should be independent of its content. The Piratebay tried to use a similar interpretation of free speech in this case, so this view seemed relevant.
Well copyright itself is a constraint on free speech, because you are not allowed to communicate copyrighted material. With perfect free speech, only the first person uploading a work could be held responsible, making copyright unenforceable. So some limitation of free speech is a necessity, the problem is where to draw the line. In my opinion, linking to infringing material shouldn't be infringement in itself, nor should a site be held responsible for the infringements commited by its costumers. But current EU law doesn't prevent that.
The problem with that is if gravitational anomalies indeed are caused by a form of invisible matter, then its mass would have to be far too great to consist of normal matter. There are many forms of possibly invisible matter: compact stars, neutrinos etc but their masses don't add up to even a fraction of the amount needed.
The conspiracy theory is that Lenin's body was replaced by a wax statue once it started to deteriorate. Wouldn't be that surprising to be honest, the bolsheviks have lied about bigger things.
If neural controllers want to ever become practical, they should start recording signals from the cerebellum, the region of the brain responsible for motor control.
The problem is, in the free market you can choose whether getting free cloud services is worth your privacy or not. But the kids didn't have a say in this matter, in fact I bet you didn't even ask them whether they agree with you forwarding their data to a third party.
The Surveyor program cost about $500m. A mere $20m prize won't make this profitable. Also, 2015 is far too close for a program like this, I don't think Google wants to pay that money.
And a robot should be just a tool. You should never trust it: you should know how it works, know how it will behave, and know that it won't hurt you. Trusting a machine you know nothing about is stupid.
Define good and bad. Novice programmers generally fare better in more restrictive languages like C or Java. On the other hand, an experienced hacker can do amazing stuff in a powerful language such as C++.
Not if they want to finance that speech from corporate money. These loopholes are already closed. The free speech equivalent for organizations is called the freedom of press, but it's somewhat more restrictive.
Documentation and asking others for help when you get stuck complement each other. You can't really learn to use something completely new on Stackoverflow, and you can't predict all the ways people will screw up or misunderstand you in a documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Security cameras don't upload everything to the net.
So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?
Sabotage is a part of espionage.
It should be called cyber espionage, and handled as an intelligence issue. Just like there's always spying, there will never be a "cyber peace". Threatening with a counterattack is based on a bad analogy, and doesn't work in this scenario.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud, false witness, lying under oath, all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information, public disturbance, giving pornography to minors, kiddie porn and so on.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, public disturbance
Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.
false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud
Freedom of speech is a human right, corporations are regulated by different laws.
all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information
Most interpretations of free speech don't treat it as inalienable. It only protects you against government censorship, you can sign away some of your free speech rights to a third party. Your lawyer, doctor etc would be liable of breach of contract.
giving pornography to minors
The rights of minors are usually regulated differently, many of them are exercised by their guardians. Their right to do any sort of business (including purchasing stuff) is severely limited. Giving away porn to kids for free isn't illegal. That said, I think that age categories should be more of a guideline than an enforced rule, and it should be the responsibility of the parents to discuss with their child what they should view.
kiddie porn
That would be a problem, yes. But I didn't agree that the radical approach is right, in fact I argued that we need to somewhat restrict free speech in order to enforce copyright. Underage porn should always be another exception. I just believe that these limitations to free speech should only be added when there's no other possibility to prevent harm.
Nobody understands what free speech is for the simple reason that there is no global objective unambigous definition of it. The UDHR first states that everybody has the right to free speech, and then later that said right can be arbitrarily limited for basically any reason (like being hurtful to "public moral").
I was referring to the idealist (or radical) view of free speech that states that the legality of communication should be independent of its content. The Piratebay tried to use a similar interpretation of free speech in this case, so this view seemed relevant.
GSM does use a form of encryption, although not a strong one. Which is one of the reasons I don't like to discuss sensitive topics on the phone.
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
Well copyright itself is a constraint on free speech, because you are not allowed to communicate copyrighted material. With perfect free speech, only the first person uploading a work could be held responsible, making copyright unenforceable. So some limitation of free speech is a necessity, the problem is where to draw the line. In my opinion, linking to infringing material shouldn't be infringement in itself, nor should a site be held responsible for the infringements commited by its costumers. But current EU law doesn't prevent that.
Too late, Geocities has closed.
The problem with that is if gravitational anomalies indeed are caused by a form of invisible matter, then its mass would have to be far too great to consist of normal matter. There are many forms of possibly invisible matter: compact stars, neutrinos etc but their masses don't add up to even a fraction of the amount needed.
The conspiracy theory is that Lenin's body was replaced by a wax statue once it started to deteriorate. Wouldn't be that surprising to be honest, the bolsheviks have lied about bigger things.
This. I use Flash on-demand, I only load the objects when I need them.
If neural controllers want to ever become practical, they should start recording signals from the cerebellum, the region of the brain responsible for motor control.
The problem is, in the free market you can choose whether getting free cloud services is worth your privacy or not. But the kids didn't have a say in this matter, in fact I bet you didn't even ask them whether they agree with you forwarding their data to a third party.
Electric lighting isn't free.
The Surveyor program cost about $500m. A mere $20m prize won't make this profitable. Also, 2015 is far too close for a program like this, I don't think Google wants to pay that money.
Who cares what the industry does, there's a flourishing indie scene ready to take their place.
What's the point of having a gate without a fence?
-Doctor, my kid is sick!
-Have you tried turning him off and on again?
And a robot should be just a tool. You should never trust it: you should know how it works, know how it will behave, and know that it won't hurt you. Trusting a machine you know nothing about is stupid.
Communication to a nonconsenting party is called harassment, and in most countries is punishable.
Define good and bad. Novice programmers generally fare better in more restrictive languages like C or Java. On the other hand, an experienced hacker can do amazing stuff in a powerful language such as C++.
Not if they want to finance that speech from corporate money. These loopholes are already closed. The free speech equivalent for organizations is called the freedom of press, but it's somewhat more restrictive.
Documentation and asking others for help when you get stuck complement each other. You can't really learn to use something completely new on Stackoverflow, and you can't predict all the ways people will screw up or misunderstand you in a documentation.