Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism, as stated by this definition, requires demands to be made, or have a political or religious motive. It does not require the use of civilian targets. IMHO its just one of the more common dysphemisms in regard to millitary action. The USA has had a problem with terrorists for ages, its not a new concept. So it boggles my mind why now, we would chose to abandon freedom for safety, just because we are "scared" of a few "terrorists".
hate it that government departments like the FCC can decide whether or not to raise my taxes simply by fiat rather than having the tax go to a vote either in Congress or in a referendum. They are answerable to no one (save their big media financiers), and do not represent us, the drooling public.
Everybody is answerable to someone and the fcc is no different. Even if its only a senate oversight committee.
Frankly, the FCC should have no say one way or the other whether the states can tax anything. It is none of their business. Their mandate is far too wide in the first place and it should be pared back, in my opinion.
I do agree with this statement tho. Taxes is no where even close to being the mandate of the fcc, they should stay out of it and let states handle their on taxes.
Circumstances like these often accomplish something very important in politics, it gives the illusion of doing something to solve the problem, when in reality they have done nothing.
"I got really burnt on bandwidth costs by doing the same thing for blogger before they had RSS, so twice a month I insert a dummy item telling people to host it themselves"
I wonder how his bandwith costs look now that he was/.'ed
While i agree that some issue's need to be forced, economics can usually handle most issues. If it is profitable for television broadcasters to switch to digital, then they would. So why force the issue?
With the way things are going in the lawsuit department lately, it seems this is kinda needed. Tho it has always been hard to explain to the buisiness world the concept of gpl style license agreements.
Tho, i do disagree 100% with the idea that developers do not need to be concerned with the legal side of this argument (from above posts), more and more do we find ourselves as developers in the spotlight when something is not 100% up to snuff. More knowledge isnt really a bad thing.
Being the honest, law abiding, trustworthy corps these spyware companies are. I'm sure they will comply! Expecially when the law in question will be virtually uninforcable. We can trust them! Really!
I think it would depend really. As a potential employer, i've got to be able to visualize you sitting in the job in question. If you stand out as being extremely good at security, then i might hire you. But the trust issue is a huge one. Internal threats are one of the biggest IMHO.
the entire idea sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesnt even touch the problem at hand. Also on that same note, it was only a matter of time before someone discovered that they can trick users *gasp* into clicking opt out for a few nasty suprises.
Google is in the market to make money. They are a buisiness that is what they do. If they think by sensoring google news for chinese users that they cah make money, then yes they will be sensoring to there hearts content. Don't be fooled into thinking they are anything but that, a buisiness.
Don't get me wrong, i like unbiased uncensored news as much as the next person, but its obvious that google feels they can make money otherwise, so is it really so shocking?
This all sounds kind of shady to me. They want to use lieing on the whois information as justification to increase the sentence of "fraudulent users" and "thieves". IMHO it would be better to just increase the sentence for the above acts all together, vice pass a shady law to do the same. But what do i know.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldnt that be the job of the people being governed?
Theres no such animal as bullet proof security, all we can do is make it more difficult to get around. 0.02$
hate it that government departments like the FCC can decide whether or not to raise my taxes simply by fiat rather than having the tax go to a vote either in Congress or in a referendum. They are answerable to no one (save their big media financiers), and do not represent us, the drooling public.
Everybody is answerable to someone and the fcc is no different. Even if its only a senate oversight committee.
Frankly, the FCC should have no say one way or the other whether the states can tax anything. It is none of their business. Their mandate is far too wide in the first place and it should be pared back, in my opinion.
I do agree with this statement tho. Taxes is no where even close to being the mandate of the fcc, they should stay out of it and let states handle their on taxes.
Circumstances like these often accomplish something very important in politics, it gives the illusion of doing something to solve the problem, when in reality they have done nothing.
Yes, but you got to start somewhere, and this is definately a step in the correct direction.
I wonder how his bandwith costs look now that he was
While i agree that some issue's need to be forced, economics can usually handle most issues. If it is profitable for television broadcasters to switch to digital, then they would. So why force the issue?
With the way things are going in the lawsuit department lately, it seems this is kinda needed. Tho it has always been hard to explain to the buisiness world the concept of gpl style license agreements.
Tho, i do disagree 100% with the idea that developers do not need to be concerned with the legal side of this argument (from above posts), more and more do we find ourselves as developers in the spotlight when something is not 100% up to snuff. More knowledge isnt really a bad thing.
Being the honest, law abiding, trustworthy corps these spyware companies are. I'm sure they will comply! Expecially when the law in question will be virtually uninforcable. We can trust them! Really!
I think it would depend really. As a potential employer, i've got to be able to visualize you sitting in the job in question. If you stand out as being extremely good at security, then i might hire you. But the trust issue is a huge one. Internal threats are one of the biggest IMHO.
Everything bad is always the presidents fault! Even the stuff he has nothing to do with!
the entire idea sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesnt even touch the problem at hand. Also on that same note, it was only a matter of time before someone discovered that they can trick users *gasp* into clicking opt out for a few nasty suprises.
Google is in the market to make money. They are a buisiness that is what they do. If they think by sensoring google news for chinese users that they cah make money, then yes they will be sensoring to there hearts content. Don't be fooled into thinking they are anything but that, a buisiness.
Don't get me wrong, i like unbiased uncensored news as much as the next person, but its obvious that google feels they can make money otherwise, so is it really so shocking?
Can we all watch the E-execution?
This all sounds kind of shady to me. They want to use lieing on the whois information as justification to increase the sentence of "fraudulent users" and "thieves". IMHO it would be better to just increase the sentence for the above acts all together, vice pass a shady law to do the same. But what do i know.