More bandwidth to suck my pc dry of all information!
What they are forgetting is that they ISP must have 100Tbps links then... 100G is already out there. But it is used to aggregate lots of 20Mbps links. If you have 1000000 subscribers on 100G links, you will need at least 1000000G to provide them with access, assuming 1:10 overbooking.
Invest your money in CSCO or JNPR while you still can. Shares are around $20/$25.
Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?
On the contrary, I was trying to explain how it works. I could have just said "you're stupid".
You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).
I tried to explain how there is a "shortage" of employment based green cards, meaning that people will be in the queue for years. However, I failed to explain the practical consequences. Let me try.
When someone wants to move to the US, permanently or temporarily, he or she needs a visa. A green card is considered a visa for that purpose so you were correct without even knowing it:) Anyway, as said before, the number of greencards (or: immigrant visa's as they are officially called) is limited on a fiscal-year basis. The number of employment based greencards are limited as a whole, but also per country. No country may receive more than 7% of the annual allotment. Chargeability is done by country of birth, not country of residence or citizenship. For Indians (with their 1.2 billion people) this means that they can be stuck in the queue for a long time.
Since they cannot legally move the the US to work without a valid visa, many of them will first move on a temporary visa. Can they? In general no. But there are two exceptions: the L-1 and H1-B visa are referred to as Dual Intent visas. This means that, while they are considered temporary and limited in time, the holder can have the intent to immigrate. So what happens in practice, is that employers sponsor their H1-B (L-1 has more difficult prerequisites) and then apply for a greencard.
Now to the bigger problem: the number of H1-B's which were alotted yeary is approx 85.000 with a few exceptions for special workers. As we know, about 75% of all H1-B's end up at Indian workers. Which is by itself not a problem, they qualify and are in general hard workers, and that's what the US needs. However, since the number of greencards is limited to 7% of the annual allotment, the queue for Indians is growing and growing. Each EB category (EB1, EB2 and EB3) will receive 265 greencards per month. Currently, there are up to 40.0000 people from India alone waiting for a greencard. Similar problems occur for Mexicans and Chinese, but in lower numbers.
In short, increasing the number of H1-B's without increasing the number of greencards is only making matters worse. People will be stuck with their H1-B's longer, which means they will be stuck with their sponsoring employer longer. Which usually means they will receive lower wages longer.
And this is why I believe that SV companies are lobbying for "immigration reform" that opens up the number of H1-B's, but not the yearly number of greencards. The solution would be to pre-allocate a greencard per dual-intent visa approved. That would mean that as soon as an employment based petition is approved, the adjustment of status is not a problem.
There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.
You don't understand US immigration very well.
EB1 is a preference category of green cards.
The H1-B visa is a non-immigrant visa, which allows workers to come to the US and work for the sponsoring employer. If someone wants to stay permanently in the US, they will have to be sponsored for a greencard. There are only two categories of greencard sponsors: family based and employment based (see where the eb comes from?). The employment based category is limited and therefore there is some form of QOS going on. The three most commonly used categories are EB1, EB2 and EB3.
EB1 is primarily used for international managers and executives, and the smartest non-execs such as PhD's and olympic athletes. EB2 is primarily used for people with a master's degree (or Bachelor + 5 years of experience). EB3 is most of the rest (with the exeption of a few special cases such as religious workers).
The problem with the above is that there are more applicants than there are greencards (or as you wish: EB1 visas) available. This means that there is a waiting list. This waiting list can be as long as 10 years. For example, the priority date (google it) for EB3-India is in 2002...
You know people take the piss out of the Kardashians all the time and for good measure but I'd gladly "talk" to Kims chest I think for the rest of my days.
Trust me, after you've seen what a milk-sucking baby can do to a woman's chest, you'd feel different. Gravity isn't the only force that destroys a perfectly good pair of tits.
San Jose is a hole and if you lived in the Bay Area long enough you would understand why. BTW, San Jose pretty much is Silicon Valley. Those suburbs are the suburbs of San Jose.
I agree and disagree. I've lived in San Jose for three years and moved to Morgan Hill last month. San Jose doesn't have a real downtown (the thing that comes closest is Santana Row), nor anything else that the big cities have (such as decent public transport).
But while SJ claims to be the "capitol" of silicon valley, it is not. Many of the big names are outside of SJ: Apple, Facebook, Twitter etc. Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View are full of tech companies, more than SJ. And where SJ does have the tech, it is primarily concentrated in the triangle 101/880/237. This area may be part of SJ as far as geography is concerned, it doesn't even come close to the feel of being in a city.
The one thing that does suck tremendously is the traffic congestion on 101, 280, 880, 238, 85 and 87. Yeah, that's like living in LA.
Oh, and don't get started on Oakland. When you have documentaries named "Gangland Oakland", you know to stay the hell away with your 100k+ tech salary.
But is there a law against importing music and movies for personal use? That's what the poster really needs to know.
I moved from Europe to the US in 2010, moved my entire household. When the movers came, I filled out a detailed form and disclaimer that everything that went into the container were personal, non-commerical and used household items. Interestingly, on the blacklist were drugs, alcohol and porn:-)
Seven weeks later, everything was cleared by customs and delivered. I doubt that they will check the contents of your harddisks.
...or does that not apply to internet service providers?
Nothing prevents Cogent from purchasing access to Verizon network. What Cogent expects instead, is for Verizon to purchase more network ports so Cogent can offload their traffic for free. "Peering" is usually mutally beneficial, meaning traffic ingress and egress is balanced. If it is not, it does not make sense to provide free access and it is fair to expect on of the parties to pay.
Essentially, Netflix pays Cogent as their "ISP". Cogent probably won that deal with their ridiculously low pricing. And now Cogent expects Verizon to invest in their network so that they can act as an extension of the Cogent network, through a "peering" agreement.
Probably necessary disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with Cogent nor Verizon. I do, however, work for a vendor of high quality networking equipment.
some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me!
Its my right to do so, this is the street you know!
I said STOP FILMING ME GLASSHOLE ! ! ! (guy is now approaching)
But.. but... its my right, its on the street...
And on the streets you need to be streetsmart jackass (Fist comes in real fast from the lower left corner... then black)
Yes, and since I have clear evidence of this guy assaulting me, half of his paycheck will go to me for the rest of his life. "Hit me baby one more time".
I'm not sure Kabul counts as EU airspace, though...
It does not. But if you would be familiar with the topic of Airlaw and Regulations, you would be informed about the fact that according to standard aviation rules, a German aircraft (when flying in Afghanistan), must be compliant with German regulations (and thus EASA), ICAO and local (in casu Afghani) regulations.
This was a small, 88lb (40kg) drone, not a Global Hawk. $2000 would be a significant chunk of its cost.
But a small cost considering the danger of airborne vehicles prone to turbulence. If a flock of geese can bring down an airliner, a human constructed chuck of metal can do the same. Geese don't have transponders, but we can include them in our devices. Your argument is flawed. Even if the cost of the transponder would double the cost of the drone, it would still be worth it, considering the potential loss of life (and the associated liability costs).
Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, mode S transponders are mandatory in all EU airspace at this time, but I'm sure some AC will be able to comment on that. It's been a while since I've touched the controls of an aircraft in the USSEU.
But surely after 10 years, "how you met" has faded into insignificance, compared with all the other factors that strengthen or weaken the marriage.
I beg to differ. How you met is very significant. If you meet your future wife in some bar in some small town in some flyover state, you may have actually settled with much less that you desired, simply because the pool of available future spouses was very small at the time.
The long term success of your marriage will be based on its foundation. If the foundation is nothing more than your spouse being a hot chick or hunk, you're gonna have a bad time. If, on the other hand, you and your spouse have matching interests, goals in life and a similar long term plan, you have an actual chance of defeating the divorce odds.
Online datingsites give you the ability to weed out anyone who is out of your league (and vice versa, for tha tmatter), and enable you to match on important stuff, not just the exterior.
I only wonder if there is anything like ACAS / TCAS on the drone and is the drone allowed to maneuver away from collision on its own?
According to the article, anti-collision technology was deemed to expensive. Which is kind of bullshit since a mode S transponder (which will help passenger jets detect the drones using TCAS) is less than $2000.
Did the CIA need to rely on scotus or ask permission from congress before its recent militarization culminating in the drone program?
The idea that the executive branch even follows rule of law any more is entirely obsolete.
Completely different story. This dicussion is regarding a government agency that is reported to be considering to implement law. Your example is an agency working outside of the borders of the law.
Let us know when you have the other side of the story.
I can tell you the other side of the story right now:
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on pending legislation
--- Jury gives verdict ---
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment while we appeal
--- Supreme Court gives verdict ---
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on matters that have been dealt with by the courts, we look at the future now.
I suggest merging & optimizing the letters used for agencies. All those agencies could be covered with just the letters A.S.S.H.A.T.S.
It does not matter how you call them. As long as they are not called C.O.N.G.R.E.S.S., they have no legislative powers. And as long as they are not called S.U.P.R.E.M.E.C.O.U.R.T., they do not have the ultimate authority over any law.
Yes, you're right, I re-read it and realized it was about the geographic rather than the magnetic north.
I fully acknowledge that I had some details wrong though I believe I got the conclusion of the article right.
Holy crap, someone call the Washington Post!! Someone on the internet admits they were wrong! IMPOSSIBRU!1!!1!!
Can you name me a law that would have put them in jail? I might be missing what they do, but if they only put those pesky "God hates fags" signs, then I see nothing applicable.
here you go.
Please, stop that pathetic slogan. You are not defending their freedom. You are defending your misunderstanding of the world.
On the contrary. As soon as those idiots from the WBC are being silenced, someone else will be next. This is the same mechanism that is used for other methods of government surveillance. It starts out as anti-terrorism or anti-child pornography, but will soon be used for petty crimes and regular unwarranted searches.
Like in Germany you have a codified freedom of opinion. An matter of opinion can not be an insult and cannot otherwise be against any law (as freedom of opinion tops any other law). From what wikipedia claims with all your "freedom of speach" you do not even have that in the US.
German law differs a lot from U.S. law. German law is eventually governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This, in turn, provides an exception for "protection of morals". Which is exactly the clause that undermines the entire protection, as "morals" are locally defined.
The U.S. constitution does not have that exception, which is why it is my belief that freedom of speech is better protected in the U.S.
If you're referring to Mein Kampf, you're mistaken. Publishing excerpts of it is prosecuted in civil courts, but only because the Bavarian state claims the copyright. When Hitler killed himself, his estate went to the state, including the publishing rights of that book. The copyright is about to expire after which everybody will be free to print copies in Germany.
On the other hand, distribution and use of some symbols commonly associated with Nazi ideology is a prohibited by the law. If and how much freedom of speech is restricted by these laws is a matter of debate. Certainly, the US is more permissive in this regard, but one should not forget that these laws grew out of denazification regulations instituted by the Allied occupation forces after World War 2.
I was indeed referring to Mein Kampf, so in that regard I stand corrected.
The general complaint is still true: in Germany (and most other EU countries), the freedom of speech is generally limited to what the majority finds acceptable. In the U.S. the opposite is true. For example, the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church can say and protest as much as they want, even though 99.999% of the U.S. population absolutely hates them (that includes me). Whould they have lived in Germany, they would have been in jail a long time ago.
I totally disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church and I despise their opinions and speech. But I will defend their freedom to express themselves so the U.S. will not become the suppressive that Germany already is, in that regard (note the 'in that regard', I'm sure other things are better in.de).
Exactly. Once more, this German court has confirmed that Germany has no freedom of speech. Everything that is outside of the realm of what the majority feels is appropriate, is forbidden. Whether that be related to the war, the poor, the economic situation, or prostitution.
Es ist verboten! I'm surprised people haven't applied for political asylum in the U.S. yet. Here, speech has at least some constitutional protection.
Seems like it would be better to report results rather than intentions
I disagree. I'm sure a number of people would volunteer to be part of that alpha test and report bugs without crying first. The more people test, the more bugs they find, the better the first release will be. I'd volunteer if my phone was not a company phone.
Is there proof that it actually was a Chinese citizen behind the keyboard? All they did so far is trace the origin back to a Chinese IP address.
Even if the culprit turned out to be a person with Chinese citizenship, it could very well be the same thing as some pimply faced youth somewhere in a fly-over state hacking into a Chinese database. It does not have to be related to the government. However, if it is, China has some explanation to do.
I'm also wondering whether or not the DOD is purposely saying "it's the Chinese" to avoid people asking them "why don't you secure your shit better?".
Slashdot Mirror
More bandwidth to suck my pc dry of all information!
What they are forgetting is that they ISP must have 100Tbps links then... 100G is already out there. But it is used to aggregate lots of 20Mbps links. If you have 1000000 subscribers on 100G links, you will need at least 1000000G to provide them with access, assuming 1:10 overbooking.
Invest your money in CSCO or JNPR while you still can. Shares are around $20/$25.
Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?
On the contrary, I was trying to explain how it works. I could have just said "you're stupid".
You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).
I tried to explain how there is a "shortage" of employment based green cards, meaning that people will be in the queue for years. However, I failed to explain the practical consequences. Let me try.
:) Anyway, as said before, the number of greencards (or: immigrant visa's as they are officially called) is limited on a fiscal-year basis. The number of employment based greencards are limited as a whole, but also per country. No country may receive more than 7% of the annual allotment. Chargeability is done by country of birth, not country of residence or citizenship. For Indians (with their 1.2 billion people) this means that they can be stuck in the queue for a long time.
When someone wants to move to the US, permanently or temporarily, he or she needs a visa. A green card is considered a visa for that purpose so you were correct without even knowing it
Since they cannot legally move the the US to work without a valid visa, many of them will first move on a temporary visa. Can they? In general no. But there are two exceptions: the L-1 and H1-B visa are referred to as Dual Intent visas. This means that, while they are considered temporary and limited in time, the holder can have the intent to immigrate. So what happens in practice, is that employers sponsor their H1-B (L-1 has more difficult prerequisites) and then apply for a greencard.
Now to the bigger problem: the number of H1-B's which were alotted yeary is approx 85.000 with a few exceptions for special workers. As we know, about 75% of all H1-B's end up at Indian workers. Which is by itself not a problem, they qualify and are in general hard workers, and that's what the US needs. However, since the number of greencards is limited to 7% of the annual allotment, the queue for Indians is growing and growing. Each EB category (EB1, EB2 and EB3) will receive 265 greencards per month. Currently, there are up to 40.0000 people from India alone waiting for a greencard. Similar problems occur for Mexicans and Chinese, but in lower numbers.
In short, increasing the number of H1-B's without increasing the number of greencards is only making matters worse. People will be stuck with their H1-B's longer, which means they will be stuck with their sponsoring employer longer. Which usually means they will receive lower wages longer.
And this is why I believe that SV companies are lobbying for "immigration reform" that opens up the number of H1-B's, but not the yearly number of greencards. The solution would be to pre-allocate a greencard per dual-intent visa approved. That would mean that as soon as an employment based petition is approved, the adjustment of status is not a problem.
There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.
You don't understand US immigration very well.
EB1 is a preference category of green cards.
The H1-B visa is a non-immigrant visa, which allows workers to come to the US and work for the sponsoring employer. If someone wants to stay permanently in the US, they will have to be sponsored for a greencard. There are only two categories of greencard sponsors: family based and employment based (see where the eb comes from?). The employment based category is limited and therefore there is some form of QOS going on. The three most commonly used categories are EB1, EB2 and EB3.
EB1 is primarily used for international managers and executives, and the smartest non-execs such as PhD's and olympic athletes.
EB2 is primarily used for people with a master's degree (or Bachelor + 5 years of experience).
EB3 is most of the rest (with the exeption of a few special cases such as religious workers).
The problem with the above is that there are more applicants than there are greencards (or as you wish: EB1 visas) available. This means that there is a waiting list. This waiting list can be as long as 10 years. For example, the priority date (google it) for EB3-India is in 2002...
You know people take the piss out of the Kardashians all the time and for good measure but I'd gladly "talk" to Kims chest I think for the rest of my days.
Trust me, after you've seen what a milk-sucking baby can do to a woman's chest, you'd feel different. Gravity isn't the only force that destroys a perfectly good pair of tits.
San Jose is a hole and if you lived in the Bay Area long enough you would understand why. BTW, San Jose pretty much is Silicon Valley. Those suburbs are the suburbs of San Jose.
I agree and disagree. I've lived in San Jose for three years and moved to Morgan Hill last month. San Jose doesn't have a real downtown (the thing that comes closest is Santana Row), nor anything else that the big cities have (such as decent public transport).
But while SJ claims to be the "capitol" of silicon valley, it is not. Many of the big names are outside of SJ: Apple, Facebook, Twitter etc. Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View are full of tech companies, more than SJ. And where SJ does have the tech, it is primarily concentrated in the triangle 101/880/237. This area may be part of SJ as far as geography is concerned, it doesn't even come close to the feel of being in a city.
The one thing that does suck tremendously is the traffic congestion on 101, 280, 880, 238, 85 and 87. Yeah, that's like living in LA.
Oh, and don't get started on Oakland. When you have documentaries named "Gangland Oakland", you know to stay the hell away with your 100k+ tech salary.
Or investing in either cryogenics or machine digitization of human consciousness. Because without one of the two, its just plain not going to happen.
Zefram Cochrane disagrees with you... :)
But is there a law against importing music and movies for personal use? That's what the poster really needs to know.
I moved from Europe to the US in 2010, moved my entire household. When the movers came, I filled out a detailed form and disclaimer that everything that went into the container were personal, non-commerical and used household items. Interestingly, on the blacklist were drugs, alcohol and porn :-)
Seven weeks later, everything was cleared by customs and delivered. I doubt that they will check the contents of your harddisks.
...or does that not apply to internet service providers?
Nothing prevents Cogent from purchasing access to Verizon network. What Cogent expects instead, is for Verizon to purchase more network ports so Cogent can offload their traffic for free. "Peering" is usually mutally beneficial, meaning traffic ingress and egress is balanced. If it is not, it does not make sense to provide free access and it is fair to expect on of the parties to pay.
Essentially, Netflix pays Cogent as their "ISP". Cogent probably won that deal with their ridiculously low pricing. And now Cogent expects Verizon to invest in their network so that they can act as an extension of the Cogent network, through a "peering" agreement.
Probably necessary disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with Cogent nor Verizon. I do, however, work for a vendor of high quality networking equipment.
some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me!
Its my right to do so, this is the street you know!
I said STOP FILMING ME GLASSHOLE ! ! ! (guy is now approaching)
But.. but... its my right, its on the street...
And on the streets you need to be streetsmart jackass (Fist comes in real fast from the lower left corner... then black)
Yes, and since I have clear evidence of this guy assaulting me, half of his paycheck will go to me for the rest of his life. "Hit me baby one more time".
I'm not sure Kabul counts as EU airspace, though...
It does not. But if you would be familiar with the topic of Airlaw and Regulations, you would be informed about the fact that according to standard aviation rules, a German aircraft (when flying in Afghanistan), must be compliant with German regulations (and thus EASA), ICAO and local (in casu Afghani) regulations.
This was a small, 88lb (40kg) drone, not a Global Hawk. $2000 would be a significant chunk of its cost.
But a small cost considering the danger of airborne vehicles prone to turbulence. If a flock of geese can bring down an airliner, a human constructed chuck of metal can do the same. Geese don't have transponders, but we can include them in our devices. Your argument is flawed. Even if the cost of the transponder would double the cost of the drone, it would still be worth it, considering the potential loss of life (and the associated liability costs).
Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, mode S transponders are mandatory in all EU airspace at this time, but I'm sure some AC will be able to comment on that. It's been a while since I've touched the controls of an aircraft in the USSEU.
But surely after 10 years, "how you met" has faded into insignificance, compared with all the other factors that strengthen or weaken the marriage.
I beg to differ. How you met is very significant. If you meet your future wife in some bar in some small town in some flyover state, you may have actually settled with much less that you desired, simply because the pool of available future spouses was very small at the time.
The long term success of your marriage will be based on its foundation. If the foundation is nothing more than your spouse being a hot chick or hunk, you're gonna have a bad time. If, on the other hand, you and your spouse have matching interests, goals in life and a similar long term plan, you have an actual chance of defeating the divorce odds.
Online datingsites give you the ability to weed out anyone who is out of your league (and vice versa, for tha tmatter), and enable you to match on important stuff, not just the exterior.
I only wonder if there is anything like ACAS / TCAS on the drone and is the drone allowed to maneuver away from collision on its own?
According to the article, anti-collision technology was deemed to expensive. Which is kind of bullshit since a mode S transponder (which will help passenger jets detect the drones using TCAS) is less than $2000.
Did the CIA need to rely on scotus or ask permission from congress before its recent militarization culminating in the drone program? The idea that the executive branch even follows rule of law any more is entirely obsolete.
Completely different story. This dicussion is regarding a government agency that is reported to be considering to implement law. Your example is an agency working outside of the borders of the law.
Let us know when you have the other side of the story.
I can tell you the other side of the story right now:
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on pending legislation
--- Jury gives verdict ---
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment while we appeal
--- Supreme Court gives verdict ---
Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on matters that have been dealt with by the courts, we look at the future now.
I suggest merging & optimizing the letters used for agencies. All those agencies could be covered with just the letters A.S.S.H.A.T.S.
It does not matter how you call them. As long as they are not called C.O.N.G.R.E.S.S., they have no legislative powers. And as long as they are not called S.U.P.R.E.M.E.C.O.U.R.T., they do not have the ultimate authority over any law.
The Australian government is about to boot its people down more.
I'd say, let's get the entire Australian government and leave them on a deserted island somewhere in the middle of the ocean...
Yes, you're right, I re-read it and realized it was about the geographic rather than the magnetic north. I fully acknowledge that I had some details wrong though I believe I got the conclusion of the article right.
Holy crap, someone call the Washington Post!! Someone on the internet admits they were wrong! IMPOSSIBRU!1!!1!!
:-)
Can you name me a law that would have put them in jail? I might be missing what they do, but if they only put those pesky "God hates fags" signs, then I see nothing applicable.
here you go.
Please, stop that pathetic slogan. You are not defending their freedom. You are defending your misunderstanding of the world.
On the contrary. As soon as those idiots from the WBC are being silenced, someone else will be next. This is the same mechanism that is used for other methods of government surveillance. It starts out as anti-terrorism or anti-child pornography, but will soon be used for petty crimes and regular unwarranted searches.
Like in Germany you have a codified freedom of opinion. An matter of opinion can not be an insult and cannot otherwise be against any law (as freedom of opinion tops any other law). From what wikipedia claims with all your "freedom of speach" you do not even have that in the US.
German law differs a lot from U.S. law. German law is eventually governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This, in turn, provides an exception for "protection of morals". Which is exactly the clause that undermines the entire protection, as "morals" are locally defined. The U.S. constitution does not have that exception, which is why it is my belief that freedom of speech is better protected in the U.S.
If you're referring to Mein Kampf, you're mistaken. Publishing excerpts of it is prosecuted in civil courts, but only because the Bavarian state claims the copyright. When Hitler killed himself, his estate went to the state, including the publishing rights of that book. The copyright is about to expire after which everybody will be free to print copies in Germany. On the other hand, distribution and use of some symbols commonly associated with Nazi ideology is a prohibited by the law. If and how much freedom of speech is restricted by these laws is a matter of debate. Certainly, the US is more permissive in this regard, but one should not forget that these laws grew out of denazification regulations instituted by the Allied occupation forces after World War 2.
I was indeed referring to Mein Kampf, so in that regard I stand corrected.
.de).
The general complaint is still true: in Germany (and most other EU countries), the freedom of speech is generally limited to what the majority finds acceptable. In the U.S. the opposite is true. For example, the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church can say and protest as much as they want, even though 99.999% of the U.S. population absolutely hates them (that includes me). Whould they have lived in Germany, they would have been in jail a long time ago.
I totally disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church and I despise their opinions and speech. But I will defend their freedom to express themselves so the U.S. will not become the suppressive that Germany already is, in that regard (note the 'in that regard', I'm sure other things are better in
Last time I checked, possession of a single book could land you in jail, in Germany.
Freedom of speech does not exist there. And you say *I* am a complete idiot? Sie mussen Deutsch sein.
Exactly. Once more, this German court has confirmed that Germany has no freedom of speech. Everything that is outside of the realm of what the majority feels is appropriate, is forbidden. Whether that be related to the war, the poor, the economic situation, or prostitution.
Es ist verboten! I'm surprised people haven't applied for political asylum in the U.S. yet. Here, speech has at least some constitutional protection.
Seems like it would be better to report results rather than intentions
I disagree. I'm sure a number of people would volunteer to be part of that alpha test and report bugs without crying first. The more people test, the more bugs they find, the better the first release will be. I'd volunteer if my phone was not a company phone.
There are always IPs belonging to China poking and prodding your server.
It is not difficult to figure out which netblocks are currently in use by Chinese entities. It is also not difficult to configure a firewall.
Is there proof that it actually was a Chinese citizen behind the keyboard? All they did so far is trace the origin back to a Chinese IP address.
Even if the culprit turned out to be a person with Chinese citizenship, it could very well be the same thing as some pimply faced youth somewhere in a fly-over state hacking into a Chinese database. It does not have to be related to the government. However, if it is, China has some explanation to do.
I'm also wondering whether or not the DOD is purposely saying "it's the Chinese" to avoid people asking them "why don't you secure your shit better?".