Even with all you said, the penalty for these 'computer crimes'....is WAY off base as far as matching punishment with crime.
We have convicted rapists and murderers that seem to get off with lighter sentences than people that do anything that involves a computer these days, even if the results don't hurt anyone and only embarrass a company or some govt. personnel.
You know, if the US govt was doing this on purpose, I'd say they were brilliant....sure, let China excel, and take some business, but in the process, kill themselves off or hurt themselves with all the pollution which as some point would keep them from overtaking us in the US, and in the end we'd "win the fiscal/commercial war".
But, in the US, we never think or plan that far ahead.
Actually, I'm kinda surprised that China which does plan for the long term, is letting this happen to themselves?
If the U. S. House of Representatives had a bit of simple integrity all of us would have the same coverage as do they. This would greatly simplify so much.
I think it takes BOTH houses to do that.
Frankly, I'd like to see all of congress and the president, subject to the same benefits as the general populace...why should they get special tx?
I guess another benefit of this will be, they can now much more easily see who the big contributors are, and if they aren't giving to your campaign (or after campaign organization to keep paying for access to the White House through Organizing for Action ) then you must be looked at as supporter of people against you.
I"m guessing this is a cleverly disguised tool to help persecute your enemies, as that I'm reasonable sure this data doesn't have the strict need to see regulations that say, medical data like HIPAA gets.
But hey, in the larger picture, this is no surprise, I mean, he went back and voted for protections on the telcos from the unwarranted wiretaps starting from his predecessor and continuing on.
And he's also hesitant to say they'd never use a drone to take a US citizen out on US soil....and....
Well, like the earlier post said, how's the hope and change working out for ya?
Most accidental parents made the mistake of having unprotected sex years ago, so why is it fair that they have to keep on paying for it, when their peers who didn't make that mistake don't have to? How is it fair that they weren't taught them the consequences of their action, in a way they would want to learn it? Or, if they did learn it, why weren't they given enough incentive to prevent them from having a baby if they did know and decided to do it anyway, and then make them pay for years and years afterwards, while everyone else gets off scotch free?
Ok, who ever said that life was FAIR?
Hey, if you fuck, you risk the consequences and just having an accident doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of your actions.
And also, what is "getting off scotch free"?
:)
But seriously....having an 'oops' kid, doesn't absolve you from anything. And life never has, and never will be fair. It is sad that there are people running around today that even would imagine thinking that.
Eh, yes, but it is not very productive to ignore that different kinds of violence have different causes and thus probably different solutions, and that some kinds of violence are more pervasive than others. I'm not defending the specific policy in question here, but your knee-jerk "all violence is bad response" is a sign that you might want to consider more nuanced ways of thinking about the world.
Sure, there are different causes, and different treatments for trying to prevent/stop/cure it.
However, laws don't do this...they legislate legality, and as the OP said, violence is violence..and it is already illegal.
The punishment for beating a man, should be the same for beating a woman. Otherwise, if you have different laws for each, you're saying one is better or worse than the other.
I see this same thing in so called 'hate laws'. Just because someone kills someone due to being of a certain race or sexual preference or worships the spotted pigeon, it should NOT be a special law for that that gives extra penalties, etc. A murder is a murder is a murder, all ending with a dead human, and should be treated and punished the same, otherwise you saying it is worse for the death of one person than the other.
And if the USA hadn't done that. If they'd been independent states, they'd never have become a world superpower. So much as it's very fashionable theses days to be libertarian and hate the federal government, you Americans wouldn't have had the success you have had without it.
We don't so much hate it, as we want to contain and control and limit it better, so that it is more answerable to the people, and that states have MORE of a say in things, much like it was originally designed, and allowed for such rapid growth and power.
Growing beyond its constitutional bounds is a major contribution to our decline currently
--Don't let your kids lose here unsupervised. It's not that hard
As I predicted, the old pass the buck to the parents nonsense. Yes, it is that hard. Technically, logistically, and time wise.
--I would no more leave a kid on an unfiltered net connection
As I also pointed out, a net nanny on a PC isn't enough. Even if the kids can't find their way around it, they have consoles, smartphones, their friends houses, free wifi all over the place.
So, exactly when did parent 'lose' the ability to control their children? My parents did quite a good job of it...they told me what I could and could not watch on TV, the TV being in all public rooms. I didn't get a phone in my room or a tv till I was in High School.
What is the world is so difficult in keeping the computer the children access in a room where they are easily observed while on it? Who says you have to give a child a fucking cell phone?!? Don't give them on till they're old enough for one.
Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?
And yes, when I grew up, both my parents worked....I knew where the loaded guns were in the house, I had been taught how to use and fire the weapon, but I never once even THOUGHT about going to get it out to play with it or show it off, etc. WTF happened since I grew up....are kids more stupid or are they not parented properly? This is just an example and carries over to anything.
The parent can control who's house the kids visit...they can control what and how much TV they consume, same with video games and computer/internet time.
This should not be a problem, it wasn't in the past, why is it such a "burden" now?
If you are going to fuck and have kids...you have to be prepared to make the sacrifice of $$ and TIME that you have to devote not to yourself as a human being, but use that time as a fucking PARENT, and spend whatever time and set whatever rules and enforce the rules on your children.
Internet time and access is one more that is added on in the modern world
Be a parent....and also remember...you do not have to give little Johnny or Susie or Shenequa everything they ask for, and just because a friend has it, doesn't mean THEY have to have it too.
And libertarians and child pornographers are in agreement that an unrestricted internet will make the world better.
See how stupid it is to associate people based on one particular thing they agree on?
You know...an unrestricted internet is what we started out with, and that un-restriction is what allowed it to grow and thrive in such a short period of time (look at the vast difference between about say 1993 and 2013).
Why should we try to restrict it now, just as it is becoming pervasive enough that so many in the world now can connect and express their view points.
This is mostly govt.s trying to put the genie back in the bottle because they didn't see this coming when it started.
I as a liberal, find things being done during the Obama admin *highly* questionable, but I can't help but wonder if there would be such protests from the conservative side of the spectrum if the administration happened to be conservative.
I do believe whole heartedly, that the news media would be full up in arms and giving MUCH more publicity to these topics if it was a conservative in office rather than Obama and his administration.
I think if it were Repbulicans doing this and many other things that were at the very least 'questionable' like you mentioned, they'd be crucified for doing some of the same actions that don't even rate much of a mention on the main news networks.
What I can NOT stand, is the damned automated voice phone things that insist on your talking to them on the phone, rather than pushing a number.
I don't like them in general, due to if I have a problem, which is usually why I'm on the phone...I want a human to talk to, but if I do have to go through a phone menu, PLEASE...just tell me a number to push....it sucks having to talk and sometime shout at the damned phone, especially at work, and the call is not work related.
I agree with you with regard to the law and the article...however, I was responding to someone that was ranting about essentially there should be no such thing as haves and have nots..and I was arguing that some people are just smarter and better at business, etc than others, we're not all created physically and mentally equal, and therefore some excel to a large extent over others and that is perfectly ok.
But everywhere you used the word "trash", the reader should infer the word "recycle". Many communities have recycling centers that will accept electronics for free.
No, I meant trash as it put in the trash along with the refuse from the kitchen, broken bottles, old cans, etc...the stuff the garbage men pick up when you leave it at the curb.
I don't have time to haul shit all over town to wherever a recycle center may be. I also only own a 2 seat sports car, and I would have to make a LOT of trips for this to haul it all away, and frankly would likely risk messing up the interior of my car, so no...I did mean the trash.
So what you're saying is that you're perfectly fine with the vast, vast, vast majority of society earning barely enough to live on, or quite often less than that, while a select few at the top make more than a thousand of us combined will ever see as gross income in our entire lives?
Well, it shows that some people know how to negotiate, network and learn how to work the systems out there better than others, so sure...why not let them succeed where others cannot.
It isn't a fair world, and you can't legislate 'equity' for those that are not as gifted, driven or even lucky as other people, and you shouldn't try really.
Slashdot Mirror
We have convicted rapists and murderers that seem to get off with lighter sentences than people that do anything that involves a computer these days, even if the results don't hurt anyone and only embarrass a company or some govt. personnel.
But, in the US, we never think or plan that far ahead.
Actually, I'm kinda surprised that China which does plan for the long term, is letting this happen to themselves?
I think it takes BOTH houses to do that.
Frankly, I'd like to see all of congress and the president, subject to the same benefits as the general populace...why should they get special tx?
How about:
1. Let the wife deal with the kids so you can work out.
But, but...I thought with Obamacare, they couldn't do that anymore....?
Isn't that what is supposed to make it so great?
I guess another benefit of this will be, they can now much more easily see who the big contributors are, and if they aren't giving to your campaign (or after campaign organization to keep paying for access to the White House through Organizing for Action ) then you must be looked at as supporter of people against you.
I"m guessing this is a cleverly disguised tool to help persecute your enemies, as that I'm reasonable sure this data doesn't have the strict need to see regulations that say, medical data like HIPAA gets.
But hey, in the larger picture, this is no surprise, I mean, he went back and voted for protections on the telcos from the unwarranted wiretaps starting from his predecessor and continuing on.
And he's also hesitant to say they'd never use a drone to take a US citizen out on US soil....and....
Well, like the earlier post said, how's the hope and change working out for ya?
After that? Maybe Caveman Lawyer?
Seriously?
Google rates you based on if your handicapped friendly or not??
What's a "front license"?
Ok, who ever said that life was FAIR?
Hey, if you fuck, you risk the consequences and just having an accident doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of your actions.
And also, what is "getting off scotch free"?
But seriously....having an 'oops' kid, doesn't absolve you from anything. And life never has, and never will be fair. It is sad that there are people running around today that even would imagine thinking that.
Where did I ever mention anything related to this???
Whoa there fella, wait a minute.....
You wear pants when your at your computer?!!?
Sure, there are different causes, and different treatments for trying to prevent/stop/cure it.
However, laws don't do this...they legislate legality, and as the OP said, violence is violence..and it is already illegal.
The punishment for beating a man, should be the same for beating a woman. Otherwise, if you have different laws for each, you're saying one is better or worse than the other.
I see this same thing in so called 'hate laws'. Just because someone kills someone due to being of a certain race or sexual preference or worships the spotted pigeon, it should NOT be a special law for that that gives extra penalties, etc. A murder is a murder is a murder, all ending with a dead human, and should be treated and punished the same, otherwise you saying it is worse for the death of one person than the other.
Hey, not all of us have data caps.
Actually, till I read about it on Slashdot, I'd never heard of the concept for a home connection.
We don't so much hate it, as we want to contain and control and limit it better, so that it is more answerable to the people, and that states have MORE of a say in things, much like it was originally designed, and allowed for such rapid growth and power.
Growing beyond its constitutional bounds is a major contribution to our decline currently
So, exactly when did parent 'lose' the ability to control their children? My parents did quite a good job of it...they told me what I could and could not watch on TV, the TV being in all public rooms. I didn't get a phone in my room or a tv till I was in High School.
What is the world is so difficult in keeping the computer the children access in a room where they are easily observed while on it? Who says you have to give a child a fucking cell phone?!? Don't give them on till they're old enough for one.
Seriously, when exactly did we switch from the parents having 100% authority and responsibility for the raising of their offspring and start to unload it on the public in general. When, exactly did parents lose the ability to control their children, and instill in the kids the fear of God (so to speak) of the repercussions if they broke the rules?
And yes, when I grew up, both my parents worked....I knew where the loaded guns were in the house, I had been taught how to use and fire the weapon, but I never once even THOUGHT about going to get it out to play with it or show it off, etc. WTF happened since I grew up....are kids more stupid or are they not parented properly? This is just an example and carries over to anything.
The parent can control who's house the kids visit...they can control what and how much TV they consume, same with video games and computer/internet time.
This should not be a problem, it wasn't in the past, why is it such a "burden" now?
If you are going to fuck and have kids...you have to be prepared to make the sacrifice of $$ and TIME that you have to devote not to yourself as a human being, but use that time as a fucking PARENT, and spend whatever time and set whatever rules and enforce the rules on your children.
Internet time and access is one more that is added on in the modern world
Be a parent....and also remember...you do not have to give little Johnny or Susie or Shenequa everything they ask for, and just because a friend has it, doesn't mean THEY have to have it too.
You know...an unrestricted internet is what we started out with, and that un-restriction is what allowed it to grow and thrive in such a short period of time (look at the vast difference between about say 1993 and 2013).
Why should we try to restrict it now, just as it is becoming pervasive enough that so many in the world now can connect and express their view points.
This is mostly govt.s trying to put the genie back in the bottle because they didn't see this coming when it started.
I do believe whole heartedly, that the news media would be full up in arms and giving MUCH more publicity to these topics if it was a conservative in office rather than Obama and his administration.
I think if it were Repbulicans doing this and many other things that were at the very least 'questionable' like you mentioned, they'd be crucified for doing some of the same actions that don't even rate much of a mention on the main news networks.
What I can NOT stand, is the damned automated voice phone things that insist on your talking to them on the phone, rather than pushing a number.
I don't like them in general, due to if I have a problem, which is usually why I'm on the phone...I want a human to talk to, but if I do have to go through a phone menu, PLEASE...just tell me a number to push....it sucks having to talk and sometime shout at the damned phone, especially at work, and the call is not work related.
Of course not....it is the Slashdot Way.
I agree with you with regard to the law and the article...however, I was responding to someone that was ranting about essentially there should be no such thing as haves and have nots..and I was arguing that some people are just smarter and better at business, etc than others, we're not all created physically and mentally equal, and therefore some excel to a large extent over others and that is perfectly ok.
No, I meant trash as it put in the trash along with the refuse from the kitchen, broken bottles, old cans, etc...the stuff the garbage men pick up when you leave it at the curb.
I don't have time to haul shit all over town to wherever a recycle center may be. I also only own a 2 seat sports car, and I would have to make a LOT of trips for this to haul it all away, and frankly would likely risk messing up the interior of my car, so no...I did mean the trash.
The SGI's are old Indy's I think...and unless you know how to reset them to get logged into them....they're useless.
Not a problem in New Orleans, you put it in the trash can, they will haul it away, they're not picky.
Well, it shows that some people know how to negotiate, network and learn how to work the systems out there better than others, so sure...why not let them succeed where others cannot.
It isn't a fair world, and you can't legislate 'equity' for those that are not as gifted, driven or even lucky as other people, and you shouldn't try really.