Yes, this data may not be served by the site hosting the iframe, but they could have javascript that sends the data right back to them without your intervention.
Yes, but Javascript doesn't share data between domains without pop-ing up a pretty nefarious-looking security warning (of course, if the music site had been installed as an IE extension, or a firefox extension, or a separate spyware executable, or if the user had manually turned off that default security setting, those would have been other ways to do it).
But most likely, they showed his contacts through an iframe, and then they used google's gmail api (which is a separate thing) to ask google to send their email to his contacts. But by using google's gmail api, authentication would have been required after he clicked on that "yes". The google api is pretty clear on this. It generates a separate authentication token for every web site the user authorizes to use his data. In other words, even if I share my data from gmail with one site, I would still need to explicitly authorize and therefore generate a new token for each new site I'd want to share my data with.
Ever happened to you? I was signing up on a music website with a gmail address, and then they asked me if I wanted to send invites to all my contacts, which magicaly appeared on their page. Even if it is apparently a common practice, I find it very disturbing.
It may have appeared on their page, but it wasn't coming from their site -- it was coming from google. Both the list of your contacts, and the request for permission to send, was coming from google. It does NOT mean the actual music site knew the email addresses of your contacts.
Here is an actual example of what I'm talking about.
Log into http://www.google.com/calendar, stick this iframe in your web site, replace the left and right parenthesis with the right symbols, and see what happens.
Assuming your calendar is marked private, having the private data from your calendar appearing within the iframe of your browser doesn't mean it's accessible by the web site hosting the iframe (nor does it mean it's accessible by the javascript outside that iframe either).
Ever happened to you? I was signing up on a music website with a gmail address, and then they asked me if I wanted to send invites to all my contacts, which magicaly appeared on their page. Even if it is apparently a common practice, I find it very disturbing.
It may have appeared on their page, but it wasn't coming from their site -- it was coming from google. Both the list of your contacts, and the request for permission to send, was coming from google. It does NOT mean the actual music site knew the email addresses of your contacts.
...but you'd think the expiration would be after the projected release date or, like Windows, set for X months after install.
In that respect, the iPhone is much better than Windows. At the push of a button, it reboots into recovery mode to the previous version of the firmware. I'm not going to hold my breath, but it would be really sweet if Windows Vista's safe-mode automatically rebooted into Windows XP.
There seems to be a view in America that for some reason online sale of non-physical products can't be taxed in the same way as other sales, either because it's wrong in some way or impossible to police. And yet in the rest of the world it's common - in Europe you have to pay VAT on iTunes purchases just as you do on everything else.
That does it Ebcdic. It's the last time I buy you an iPod and bring it back to you so you can avoid paying VAT taxes.
5. This study evaluates 'ruthlessness' based on a money board game.
6. This study pinpoints a very specific gene, but ignores the most important criteria for winning money board games; cultural upbringing, personal experience, current education, and socio-economic class.
Making half-baked absolute generalizations about people's ingrained behaviors based on a gene is a very-very dangerous idea. It could be made to say anything the person (I won't say scientist) leading the study wants to believe.
End-users like this arrangement for cellphone service. They would understand and appreciate such a thing coming to their Internet service, especially if it meant that most of them ended up paying $10 less on their monthly bill.
You're making the assumption that ISPs/cell phone companies base their prices on their ongoing cost. That's not entirely correct. The price of a service is often a function of supply and demand. And an ISP/cell phone company will often manipulate the perception of that supply and demand by making sure that no consumer is able to compare their prices with their competitors' prices.
In other words, if such a model were to be adopted, every company would adopt each a different pricing model for metering usage. One provider would have free minutes of internet between 2 am and 7 am. Another provider would have free/partially discounted minutes of internet between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm. And another provider still would provide some functionality free with some other functionality that's purposefully crippled.
The end result would be a potpourris of confusion and annoyance for the consumer, just like the cell phone market is right now for the American consumer. And I guarantee you, the end result wouldn't make sense. Pricing schemes are not optimized to enlighten and save money for the consumer. Pricing schemes are optimized to confuse the consumer and take away money *from* him.
And if you go back far enough, you'll find that Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and/or the Minitel did charge for the internet in a metered fashion. They just didn't do it in the same ways, and often they didn't provide the same services -- for the exact reasons I described. AOL for instance didn't give full access to the World Wide Web, it tried to have a marketing partnership with every content provider its users connected to. And it didn't charge by the month, it charged by the minute -- often charging exorbitant $300 bills per month -- while its uncrippled competitors ended up charging much less for unlimited access.
I suppose some software development companies "object" to open source code (especially to opening up their own code)
Exactly, whether it's Kerberos for Microsoft or Darwin for Apple, proprietary software companies never had any problem using/integrating open source code into their own products as long as it didn't force them to open their own source code to others.
That's why this opinion by this analyst at Gartner is so misguided. Open source code has already quietly taken over everything. And the analyst is not describing uninformed people from the future, he's describing himself right now.
And do what instead? America's critics are quick to blame us, slow to credit us, and they never, ever have any solutions to any problems.
First off, let's both agree that there is no solution to every single ill in this World. And in some cases, like when a country is a budding socialist democracy for example, leaving it alone (unless it starts invading other countries) works better than installing an autocratic regime in its place.
Second, stop speaking like a victim (and this, even thought it may sound like a personal attack, I ask that you do not take as one). These days, both the people ON MY SIDE are speaking like victims, and the people on your side are speaking like victims.
And I'm not asking that the entire World stop speaking like a victim, I'm only asking you right now -- for the purpose of this discussion -- within regards to what you just said -- stop doing that. You've just made a massive absolute generalization about America's critics, and somehow you've just lumped me with all these people -- as if somehow -- we were all one person and we all spoke with one single voice.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not speak for these people (who may happen to agree with me on these points). I can only speak for myself. There are enough wackos on both sides of issues like this one. I do not want to be responsible for the statements of the wackos on my side as I'm sure you do not want to be responsible the statements made by the wackos on yours. Furthermore, I do not want to speak about absolute generalizations either, I only want to limit myself to discussing specific concrete incidents, otherwise, I believe that the discussion leads nowhere -- only more vitriol.
Now if you're still interested in debating this with me, I only ask that you pick a specific point that I've made (if you've read my previous comments, you'll know I've made plenty) and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Hopefully, you'll back your reasoning with specific concrete examples, not generalities about how bad or unfair I am (or people like me are).
And how is it useful to bring up 50-year-old talking points like this? It makes the point that "America is bad". Ok, point made. You think America is bad, partly because of stuff that happened 50 years ago.
I didn't bring up Iran, the parent poster before me did. I was responding specifically to his talking points.
"America is bad"? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we should stop attacking foreign countries to install puppet governments (and no, I'm not even talking about Iraq in this case). I'm not even making an argument based on morality, I'm making an argument purely based on longterm effectiveness.
I could have equally brought up what happened to Venezuela in April 11th 2001 (this was an attack on a democracy sanctioned by our current President), but considering the fact that the American press distorted what truly happened over there and considering the fact that we won't know what truly happened until the information gets declassified (probably fifty years from now) -- I didn't think it worth mentioning.
Work on some of your own stuff, make a cool game, or a tech demo that shows off something somewhat complex (some physics, AI, graphics, whatever you're into).
Don't work on a "cool" game. Work on a *simple* game first (either make a 2 dimensional ascii game that runs from the command line, or make a game using a recommended game engine or a recommended set of mature libraries -- where most of the work has already been done for you).
I've seen enough newbies fail at making computer games to know that the most common blunder they make is picking an overly ambitious goal for themselves. Do not go down that road. Do not even brag to your friends about how cool your game is going to be. Make your game as simple as possible. You can always add complexity later on.
Focus on the process itself, not the outcome. If you spend all your time day dreaming about how cool your game is going to be, it will be like eating mental sugar, that excitement will energize you for a couple of days, but then it will make you crash and stop working once you figure out that the emotional payoff of completing something does not come fast enough.
Also try attending a couple of user groups in your area of interest and try out a couple people as programming partners (this advice is not only good for game programming, but also any other kind of programming). The San Francisco Bay Area is a very good area to be in. There is a social dimension to programming that can not be underestimated. And finally, if you get stuck on something, don't get discouraged, even getting stuck on something is a learning experience, journal everything you do -- the good and the bad, and then try something else, keep on trying different things, keep on simplifying your goals -- until you finally achieve roughly what you want.
Incorrect? May be. Misinformed? May be as well. Dishonest? How can you be so sure that my intent is dishonest? If your case against my arguments is so strong, why don't just let those facts speak for themselves?
First, electing a socialist president was very likely the first step to Iran falling under Soviet influence.
That's what I'd call a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only if a government is attacked by a super-power, it will find refuge in the enemy of that super-power. Otherwise, it is the natural will of any government on this planet to want to remain free from foreign influence, Soviet or otherwise...
At the time, the Cold War was a matter of making sure the entire world didn't fall under dictatorship.
The end justifies the means. Is that what you're saying? In other words, transforming Iran into an autocratic State with no more political parties and no more elections must have been the first step in creating a worldwide democracy. Right? How can you be so sure that the democracy of Iran wouldn't have remained a democracy if left to its own devices?
A few uncoordinated, anti-communist dictatorships could eventually fall to democracy:
"A few uncoordinated" dictatorships? Aren't all those dictatorships the US props up COORDINATED and controlled by the United States? It's not like they get a vote from us in our affairs in exchange for a vote in theirs. And the United States may behave like a democracy within its own borders, but it acts more like a central dictator everywhere else in the World.
a coordinated, worldwide communist dictatorship would take longer and would ultimately be worse.
But that's the thing, the socialist democracy wasn't coordinated from outside, it rose from within. A communist government that rises to power by itself does not make a Soviet lapdog be. It's the same with a capitalist democratic government, if it rises to power by itself -- it has no reason to obey the United States.
Second, the Islamist nutjobs rose to power in 1979, over 20 years after we overthrow Mossadegh and installed the Shah.
So your thesis is that since the Islamist nutjobs didn't rise up to power right after the installation of the Shah, that the installation of the Shah wasn't the ultimate cause of their rise. I assume that's what you're saying. And somehow, your thesis must be so right, it can only be "dishonest" on my part not to agree with it?
It's disingenuous to simply blame the Eisenhower-era foreign policy for that.
There you go again, you're saying that I'm wrong (that, I am fine with if that's what you believe), but then you're insinuating that I am intentionally/maliciously being wrong.
Part of the blame lies with Eisenhower, of course, for installing someone who couldn't maintain power. [...] Part of the blame lies with the Shah for his mistakes.
In the long-run, governments are unstable by their very nature. If a democracy can survive its infancy, it allows for that instability to occur within its own framework. Democracies are like pressure-release valves.
You can blame Eisenhower for selecting the wrong person, and you can blame the Shah for making mistakes, but I don't believe that any of these things really mattered. A population wants to be free and independent to chose its own leader.
Part of the blame lies with the people of Iran for becoming Islamist nutjobs.
So you don't think that if some foreign super-power invaded the United States and placed its own puppet as our new autocratic dictator, that our population wouldn't become more religious, more nationalistic, and more nutty as a result?
Now you may say it's immoral to install and support dictators anyway.
...he'd be asking why we were not in Iraq sooner to prevent all those brown people from getting killed and thrown into mass graves.
Asymmetrical information. I believe that's the answer you're looking for.
When the Kurds were getting gassed in Iraq. Most major newspapers in Europe made it front page. In the US, there was no mention of it, or if there was, the story got buried so deep -- most American people -- even the ones who do manage to read Major American newspapers on a daily basis -- couldn't tell you what had happen.
Furthermore, when the issue came up in front of the UN security council to impose sanctions, only one member was totally against it and -- that was the US. Once again, this brings us back to this information asymmetry. When I tell my American friends this, they have no idea of what I'm talking about.
He'd be screaming for us to go into places like Iran, where they hang gays in public square
Once again, there seems to be some information asymmetry going on here. Before we ousted their democratically elected President and installed a puppet of our own choosing, Iran was a SECULAR country in every modern sense of the word (i.e. women went to school, women were doctors, gays didn't get publicly executed, etc.), the only crime they had committed was that they nationalized their own oil fields and kicked out British Petroleum. That's when everything started going to hell. And that's only then that the religious nationalist nut-jobs rose to power.
Think of me as a "troll" if you will. Assume that I'm just like another liberal whack-job, that will distort and romanticize past history to maintain his own distorted sense of reality. But whatever you end up believing about me, realize that the poster you just replied to -- didn't deserve half of the insults and the condescending remarks -- you gave him. And nor did that poster need to imply that all the people who disagreed with him were racists either. There are no winners here. In either case, there is no need to demonize someone because they disagree with you, or because they may know less than you do. This kind of inflamed discussion leads nowhere.
Wikileaks is not a reliable online newspaper, because it is NOT a newspaper. As an anonymous mail box, it's pretty reliable, because that's its purpose (at least, that's my assumption, I could be wrong on that point).
If it's completely unreliable, then it's completely useless.
Once again, reliability for what purpose? Something that's completely unreliable for one purpose, may be completely reliable for another.
Not the Windows driver, but perhaps the Linux one.
Don't be so quick to concede. Some of us users do try to write (or debug) our own device drivers on Windows. Personal necessity is usually our motivation.
If you google just a little bit, you'll find plenty of instructions for sniffing your own ports and writing your own device drivers on Windows machines.
Seriously, yes, I'd love to see a secure browser I could recommend for my family's computers,
If you have kids, or aging grandparents, lynx is the only way to go.
It doesn't offer perfect security. Nothing offers perfect security. But at least with Lynx, you're getting rid of most problems in one swoop. And if Lynx still doesn't solve your security concerns, the next step would just be to unplug your entire family from the internet, replace their computers with typewriters, and mail their letters in a fake mailbox/shredder of your own construction. And then, may be, just may be, if you train your family well enough not to answer the doorbell, not to answer the phone, and not go out ever -- then your family will be more secure than most (although, they still won't be completely secure).
Ooops, here it is again with the link correctly posted this time...
There continue to be links between cell phone use and brain tumors and, though I haven't heard anything recently about power lines, I would not buy a house near high voltage lines.
But that's the thing, in Sweden the tenuous conclusion some people are making is that you shouldn't be using a cell phone, or that if you decide to use a cell phone, you better be VERY NEAR a cell phone tower -- because otherwise your cell phone will be transmitting like crazy and they claim -- that's where the real danger lies.
At least, that's their conclusion for explaining the unexpected outcome that cell phone users living near cell phone towers are actually less likely to develop brain tumors than the same people living farther away from those towers.
There continue to be links between cell phone use and brain tumors and, though I haven't heard anything recently about power lines, I would not buy a house near high voltage lines.
But that's the thing, in Sweden the tenuous conclusion some people are making is that you shouldn't be using a cell phone, or that if you decide to use a cell phone, you better be VERY NEAR a cell phone tower -- because otherwise your cell phone will be transmitting like crazy and they claim -- that's where the danger lies.
At least, that's their conclusion for explaining the unexpected outcome that cell phone users living near cell phone towers are actually less likely to develop brain tumors than the same people living farther away from those towers.
As with most O/S you are in for some misery if you attempt to upgrade a legacy machine.
Are you suggesting that the Vista-ready machine I just bought last month is now a legacy machine? Because that's what the article is about, it's describing the effect of a Service Pack upgrade on a Vista machine -- NOT the effect of a full OS upgrade on an XP machine.
National Security supersedes the Presidential Records Act. There was likely e-mail on those drives that could've had a massive negative effect on the President and his administration, thus it is in our national security interests to see that those records were destroyed.
No, on the contrary National Security demands that the Presidential Records Act be enforced rigorously.
First off, you're implying that the Presidential Records Act has no provisions for National Security. That's completely wrong. It does have those provisions. It already has a number of procedures in place for either disseminating that information or restricting that information from becoming public.
And by far, the most important part of the act is to ensure that future Presidents have access to that information in the future. National Security demands that a current President be aware of the past official actions and the past official emails of his predecessors. The entire security of our nation often depends on the successful transition of our government between different people. So if a National Security-related email is sent/received under one President, it stands to reason that any future President must have access to that same email for those same National Security reasons.
If you don't do this, then it would mean that a past President, now an ordinary citizen could be more knowledgeable about some National Security matters than a current President. And in my mind, that would be completely unacceptable, a current President needs to know everything (or at least in theory, have access to everything).
I agree with this, but I don't think that individuals who have an existing wireless access point should let others use theirs for free.
That's for those individuals to decide. That's not for *you* to decide.
If you want to charge your neighbors for your connection, that's fine, more power to you, and that's already happening. My ISP already allows me to do this, and they say -- they'll even take care of the billing of my neighbors should I want them to handle that part (at the rate of my choosing of course). And if you share your connection in that way, I believe there is a certain amount of legal protection you would already be getting since you'd be getting documented payments from your neighbors and you'd essentially be acting as a common carrier (which carries a certain amount of legal protection -- at least in my State).
That being said, the original poster was asking for some legal protection for those of us who chose NOT to charge, or who wish NOT to bother with the obligation of keeping up a continuous wireless connection to others. For instance, when I don't need my connection, I keep it open and unencrypted. On the other hand, if I'm home and streaming a movie from netflix, or whatever, I close off my connection completely to others -- just in case I need my full bandwidth.
Now, if I did receive payments from my neighbors for that service, that situation would be all shot to hell. I already have a job. I already provide Tech support at the office. I certainly do not want people calling me at home when their internet is down. And I know I could provide them with a fixed schedule and a don't-call-me clause in the contract, but I really don't want to bother and as the impulsive impatient consumer that I am -- I want to use my bandwidth however and whenever I feel like it -- not on a schedule. Besides providing bandwidth to my neighbors represents a business with very little longterm growth and very little longterm opportunity, at least for me. Of course, this may not be the case for you, but at least I'm not asking that everyone provides their wireless access points for free, I'm only asking that those of us who wish to do so -- be allowed to do so -- at least within reasons. For instance I believe that we should be getting the same legal protections that an individual would be getting if that individual provided that same service for a fee.
These new features are nice and all, but what I really want as a Web developer is for a Javascript standard thorough and widespread enough that I can write scripts that work on most browsers without a bunch of hacks to make sure that each browser gets the right code. Anyone have a prognosis on this?
You mean this? An (almost) universal metalanguage that generates the right Javascript/Actionscript/Neko scripts for different environments.
Slashdot Mirror
your mom?
But most likely, they showed his contacts through an iframe, and then they used google's gmail api (which is a separate thing) to ask google to send their email to his contacts. But by using google's gmail api, authentication would have been required after he clicked on that "yes". The google api is pretty clear on this. It generates a separate authentication token for every web site the user authorizes to use his data. In other words, even if I share my data from gmail with one site, I would still need to explicitly authorize and therefore generate a new token for each new site I'd want to share my data with.
5. This study evaluates 'ruthlessness' based on a money board game.
6. This study pinpoints a very specific gene, but ignores the most important criteria for winning money board games; cultural upbringing, personal experience, current education, and socio-economic class.
Making half-baked absolute generalizations about people's ingrained behaviors based on a gene is a very-very dangerous idea. It could be made to say anything the person (I won't say scientist) leading the study wants to believe.
In other words, if such a model were to be adopted, every company would adopt each a different pricing model for metering usage. One provider would have free minutes of internet between 2 am and 7 am. Another provider would have free/partially discounted minutes of internet between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm. And another provider still would provide some functionality free with some other functionality that's purposefully crippled.
The end result would be a potpourris of confusion and annoyance for the consumer, just like the cell phone market is right now for the American consumer. And I guarantee you, the end result wouldn't make sense. Pricing schemes are not optimized to enlighten and save money for the consumer. Pricing schemes are optimized to confuse the consumer and take away money *from* him.
And if you go back far enough, you'll find that Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and/or the Minitel did charge for the internet in a metered fashion. They just didn't do it in the same ways, and often they didn't provide the same services -- for the exact reasons I described. AOL for instance didn't give full access to the World Wide Web, it tried to have a marketing partnership with every content provider its users connected to. And it didn't charge by the month, it charged by the minute -- often charging exorbitant $300 bills per month -- while its uncrippled competitors ended up charging much less for unlimited access.
That's why this opinion by this analyst at Gartner is so misguided. Open source code has already quietly taken over everything. And the analyst is not describing uninformed people from the future, he's describing himself right now.
Second, stop speaking like a victim (and this, even thought it may sound like a personal attack, I ask that you do not take as one). These days, both the people ON MY SIDE are speaking like victims, and the people on your side are speaking like victims. And I'm not asking that the entire World stop speaking like a victim, I'm only asking you right now -- for the purpose of this discussion -- within regards to what you just said -- stop doing that. You've just made a massive absolute generalization about America's critics, and somehow you've just lumped me with all these people -- as if somehow -- we were all one person and we all spoke with one single voice.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not speak for these people (who may happen to agree with me on these points). I can only speak for myself. There are enough wackos on both sides of issues like this one. I do not want to be responsible for the statements of the wackos on my side as I'm sure you do not want to be responsible the statements made by the wackos on yours. Furthermore, I do not want to speak about absolute generalizations either, I only want to limit myself to discussing specific concrete incidents, otherwise, I believe that the discussion leads nowhere -- only more vitriol.
Now if you're still interested in debating this with me, I only ask that you pick a specific point that I've made (if you've read my previous comments, you'll know I've made plenty) and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Hopefully, you'll back your reasoning with specific concrete examples, not generalities about how bad or unfair I am (or people like me are).
"America is bad"? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we should stop attacking foreign countries to install puppet governments (and no, I'm not even talking about Iraq in this case). I'm not even making an argument based on morality, I'm making an argument purely based on longterm effectiveness.
I could have equally brought up what happened to Venezuela in April 11th 2001 (this was an attack on a democracy sanctioned by our current President), but considering the fact that the American press distorted what truly happened over there and considering the fact that we won't know what truly happened until the information gets declassified (probably fifty years from now) -- I didn't think it worth mentioning.
I've seen enough newbies fail at making computer games to know that the most common blunder they make is picking an overly ambitious goal for themselves. Do not go down that road. Do not even brag to your friends about how cool your game is going to be. Make your game as simple as possible. You can always add complexity later on.
Focus on the process itself, not the outcome. If you spend all your time day dreaming about how cool your game is going to be, it will be like eating mental sugar, that excitement will energize you for a couple of days, but then it will make you crash and stop working once you figure out that the emotional payoff of completing something does not come fast enough.
Also try attending a couple of user groups in your area of interest and try out a couple people as programming partners (this advice is not only good for game programming, but also any other kind of programming). The San Francisco Bay Area is a very good area to be in. There is a social dimension to programming that can not be underestimated. And finally, if you get stuck on something, don't get discouraged, even getting stuck on something is a learning experience, journal everything you do -- the good and the bad, and then try something else, keep on trying different things, keep on simplifying your goals -- until you finally achieve roughly what you want.
Incorrect? May be. Misinformed? May be as well. Dishonest? How can you be so sure that my intent is dishonest? If your case against my arguments is so strong, why don't just let those facts speak for themselves?
That's what I'd call a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only if a government is attacked by a super-power, it will find refuge in the enemy of that super-power. Otherwise, it is the natural will of any government on this planet to want to remain free from foreign influence, Soviet or otherwise...
The end justifies the means. Is that what you're saying? In other words, transforming Iran into an autocratic State with no more political parties and no more elections must have been the first step in creating a worldwide democracy. Right? How can you be so sure that the democracy of Iran wouldn't have remained a democracy if left to its own devices?
"A few uncoordinated" dictatorships? Aren't all those dictatorships the US props up COORDINATED and controlled by the United States? It's not like they get a vote from us in our affairs in exchange for a vote in theirs. And the United States may behave like a democracy within its own borders, but it acts more like a central dictator everywhere else in the World.
But that's the thing, the socialist democracy wasn't coordinated from outside, it rose from within. A communist government that rises to power by itself does not make a Soviet lapdog be. It's the same with a capitalist democratic government, if it rises to power by itself -- it has no reason to obey the United States.
So your thesis is that since the Islamist nutjobs didn't rise up to power right after the installation of the Shah, that the installation of the Shah wasn't the ultimate cause of their rise. I assume that's what you're saying. And somehow, your thesis must be so right, it can only be "dishonest" on my part not to agree with it?
There you go again, you're saying that I'm wrong (that, I am fine with if that's what you believe), but then you're insinuating that I am intentionally/maliciously being wrong.
In the long-run, governments are unstable by their very nature. If a democracy can survive its infancy, it allows for that instability to occur within its own framework. Democracies are like pressure-release valves. You can blame Eisenhower for selecting the wrong person, and you can blame the Shah for making mistakes, but I don't believe that any of these things really mattered. A population wants to be free and independent to chose its own leader.
So you don't think that if some foreign super-power invaded the United States and placed its own puppet as our new autocratic dictator, that our population wouldn't become more religious, more nationalistic, and more nutty as a result?
I'm not debating this on moral grounds. I'm
When the Kurds were getting gassed in Iraq. Most major newspapers in Europe made it front page. In the US, there was no mention of it, or if there was, the story got buried so deep -- most American people -- even the ones who do manage to read Major American newspapers on a daily basis -- couldn't tell you what had happen.
Furthermore, when the issue came up in front of the UN security council to impose sanctions, only one member was totally against it and -- that was the US. Once again, this brings us back to this information asymmetry. When I tell my American friends this, they have no idea of what I'm talking about. Once again, there seems to be some information asymmetry going on here. Before we ousted their democratically elected President and installed a puppet of our own choosing, Iran was a SECULAR country in every modern sense of the word (i.e. women went to school, women were doctors, gays didn't get publicly executed, etc.), the only crime they had committed was that they nationalized their own oil fields and kicked out British Petroleum. That's when everything started going to hell. And that's only then that the religious nationalist nut-jobs rose to power.
Think of me as a "troll" if you will. Assume that I'm just like another liberal whack-job, that will distort and romanticize past history to maintain his own distorted sense of reality. But whatever you end up believing about me, realize that the poster you just replied to -- didn't deserve half of the insults and the condescending remarks -- you gave him. And nor did that poster need to imply that all the people who disagreed with him were racists either. There are no winners here. In either case, there is no need to demonize someone because they disagree with you, or because they may know less than you do. This kind of inflamed discussion leads nowhere.
We only need one that's BOTH sufficiently interested AND sufficiently qualified to do the job.
It doesn't offer perfect security. Nothing offers perfect security. But at least with Lynx, you're getting rid of most problems in one swoop. And if Lynx still doesn't solve your security concerns, the next step would just be to unplug your entire family from the internet, replace their computers with typewriters, and mail their letters in a fake mailbox/shredder of your own construction. And then, may be, just may be, if you train your family well enough not to answer the doorbell, not to answer the phone, and not go out ever -- then your family will be more secure than most (although, they still won't be completely secure).
At least, that's their conclusion for explaining the unexpected outcome that cell phone users living near cell phone towers are actually less likely to develop brain tumors than the same people living farther away from those towers.
At least, that's their conclusion for explaining the unexpected outcome that cell phone users living near cell phone towers are actually less likely to develop brain tumors than the same people living farther away from those towers.
First off, you're implying that the Presidential Records Act has no provisions for National Security. That's completely wrong. It does have those provisions. It already has a number of procedures in place for either disseminating that information or restricting that information from becoming public.
And by far, the most important part of the act is to ensure that future Presidents have access to that information in the future. National Security demands that a current President be aware of the past official actions and the past official emails of his predecessors. The entire security of our nation often depends on the successful transition of our government between different people. So if a National Security-related email is sent/received under one President, it stands to reason that any future President must have access to that same email for those same National Security reasons.
If you don't do this, then it would mean that a past President, now an ordinary citizen could be more knowledgeable about some National Security matters than a current President. And in my mind, that would be completely unacceptable, a current President needs to know everything (or at least in theory, have access to everything).
That being said, the original poster was asking for some legal protection for those of us who chose NOT to charge, or who wish NOT to bother with the obligation of keeping up a continuous wireless connection to others. For instance, when I don't need my connection, I keep it open and unencrypted. On the other hand, if I'm home and streaming a movie from netflix, or whatever, I close off my connection completely to others -- just in case I need my full bandwidth.
Now, if I did receive payments from my neighbors for that service, that situation would be all shot to hell. I already have a job. I already provide Tech support at the office. I certainly do not want people calling me at home when their internet is down. And I know I could provide them with a fixed schedule and a don't-call-me clause in the contract, but I really don't want to bother and as the impulsive impatient consumer that I am -- I want to use my bandwidth however and whenever I feel like it -- not on a schedule. Besides providing bandwidth to my neighbors represents a business with very little longterm growth and very little longterm opportunity, at least for me. Of course, this may not be the case for you, but at least I'm not asking that everyone provides their wireless access points for free, I'm only asking that those of us who wish to do so -- be allowed to do so -- at least within reasons. For instance I believe that we should be getting the same legal protections that an individual would be getting if that individual provided that same service for a fee.
I don't get it. The color spectrum is infinite. How many colors would we be allowed to use?