This is a question not a statement as I am not a lawyer. If this were in the US would this not violate price fixing laws? If so, does the UK not have similar laws or have these folks found some way around them?
In the end, I believe the debate isn't about regulating VoIP technology, but rather guaranteeing government tax revenues. Several people have pointed out how difficult it will be to properly identify voice calls and collect taxes from overseas companies offering voice services. So if the services this tax is being collected for, 911, rural access, etc, are considered basic services that the government should provide...then why not support them through the normal IRS personal income tax system? That might mean an apparent tax increase come April when people file, but then again, they are paying it already, it just hides on their phone bill so they are less likely to notice it.
I must have missed something, didn't a bunch of researchers at a University working on mouse contraceptives discover this? Last I checked, Universities weren't exactly a hot bed of military activity...
So why does everyone keep saying things like the US Government and US Military did this? Maybe the government needs to have more oversight into what University researches are allowed to do, that will solve everything I am sure.
Interesting, that is essentially what Nazi soldiers said after WWII as well, "We were just following orders", the world decided that wasn't an excuse for what they had done. So, if you say that our nation sent soldiers off to commit atrocities, and they carried out those orders, then yes, they are terrorists, murders, baby killers, or whatever word you prefer.
While I disagree with your opinion entirely, you have the right to it, but don't try to weasel out of the full implications of what you are saying.
When he was arrested the statement was made that he had gone overseas to meet with Al Queda operatives. Since a passport, visa and airline tickets are relatively easily tracked, I believe that it would be easy for the government to determine where he went. Obviously not as easy to determine who he met with. The only assumption I am making is that the government did not lie about that. I would posit that you are making assumptions as well.
In the end it may turn out that the government did lie, I hope not, but I am not foolish enough to believe that the government is always honest. I need look no further than Ruby Ridge or Waco to see glaring examples of government duplicity.
Many of us looked up online info on dirty bombs. However, I think it is safe to say that none of us that were simply curious followed up on that research by going overseas to meet with Al Qaeda operatives. I believe that would be considered a significant difference by most people. When someone starts investing money into a venture, that is a pretty sound indication that things have moved beyond the just curious stage.
He is right, as screwy as it sounds, the Geneva conventions do say this. I was an M1 Tanker in the first Gulf War and in fact we are not supposed to "fire" our laser rangefinder at troops in the open. So, you range to the ground close to them and then proceed to hose them with machine gun fire. Mind you, that would be the small caliber 7.62mm machine gun and not the.50 caliber heavy machine gun, because according to the convention, the.50 is an inhumane weapon and is only allowed to be used on vehicles. The Geneva conventions are a rather idealistic set of morals applied to one of the worst endeavors known to man. I do believe that there comes a time when war is the only option, but no war is clean, or nice and to try to make it so with laws like this seems rather inane or should I say insane?
Regarding the parts pertaining to POWs, does anyone actually think that these rather toothless laws have actually made a nation treat POWs differently than they otherwise would have? I do mean this last as an honest question. Personally I doubt it, but there may be some examples that I am unaware of.
I believe some joker already released an NMAP patch that flips this bit. Who want's to bet there are scans occuring on the net with this bit set already? =)
Apparently the strategy is working. They aren't perfect, but is there another company out there today that is truly competing with them? Don't tell me Bay Networks, they are Nortel now and I believe their market value is roughly equivelant to what Cisco sells in any given quarter. Fore? They have been bought so many times I don't even know who owns them. Cabletron...RIP. 3COM, they backed out of the market's Cisco competed in and went after the low end market...you know, the Lynksys market =)
I am not quite sure I understand why reporters think they have some innate rights not granted to everyone else. If you transmit in a combat zone, using communication equipment that is essentially identical to that used for command and control by the military under attack in said country...you might get shot. The U.S military was just kind enough to point out to this reporter what would be blindingly obvious to most people.
PS. No, television signals are not the same as satellite uplinks, but hey, she is a journalist, why should she actually be sure of her facts.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a question not a statement as I am not a lawyer. If this were in the US would this not violate price fixing laws? If so, does the UK not have similar laws or have these folks found some way around them?
In the end, I believe the debate isn't about regulating VoIP technology, but rather guaranteeing government tax revenues. Several people have pointed out how difficult it will be to properly identify voice calls and collect taxes from overseas companies offering voice services. So if the services this tax is being collected for, 911, rural access, etc, are considered basic services that the government should provide...then why not support them through the normal IRS personal income tax system? That might mean an apparent tax increase come April when people file, but then again, they are paying it already, it just hides on their phone bill so they are less likely to notice it.
I must have missed something, didn't a bunch of researchers at a University working on mouse contraceptives discover this? Last I checked, Universities weren't exactly a hot bed of military activity... So why does everyone keep saying things like the US Government and US Military did this? Maybe the government needs to have more oversight into what University researches are allowed to do, that will solve everything I am sure.
Interesting, that is essentially what Nazi soldiers said after WWII as well, "We were just following orders", the world decided that wasn't an excuse for what they had done. So, if you say that our nation sent soldiers off to commit atrocities, and they carried out those orders, then yes, they are terrorists, murders, baby killers, or whatever word you prefer.
While I disagree with your opinion entirely, you have the right to it, but don't try to weasel out of the full implications of what you are saying.
When he was arrested the statement was made that he had gone overseas to meet with Al Queda operatives. Since a passport, visa and airline tickets are relatively easily tracked, I believe that it would be easy for the government to determine where he went. Obviously not as easy to determine who he met with. The only assumption I am making is that the government did not lie about that. I would posit that you are making assumptions as well. In the end it may turn out that the government did lie, I hope not, but I am not foolish enough to believe that the government is always honest. I need look no further than Ruby Ridge or Waco to see glaring examples of government duplicity.
Many of us looked up online info on dirty bombs. However, I think it is safe to say that none of us that were simply curious followed up on that research by going overseas to meet with Al Qaeda operatives. I believe that would be considered a significant difference by most people. When someone starts investing money into a venture, that is a pretty sound indication that things have moved beyond the just curious stage.
He is right, as screwy as it sounds, the Geneva conventions do say this. I was an M1 Tanker in the first Gulf War and in fact we are not supposed to "fire" our laser rangefinder at troops in the open. So, you range to the ground close to them and then proceed to hose them with machine gun fire. Mind you, that would be the small caliber 7.62mm machine gun and not the .50 caliber heavy machine gun, because according to the convention, the .50 is an inhumane weapon and is only allowed to be used on vehicles. The Geneva conventions are a rather idealistic set of morals applied to one of the worst endeavors known to man. I do believe that there comes a time when war is the only option, but no war is clean, or nice and to try to make it so with laws like this seems rather inane or should I say insane?
Regarding the parts pertaining to POWs, does anyone actually think that these rather toothless laws have actually made a nation treat POWs differently than they otherwise would have? I do mean this last as an honest question. Personally I doubt it, but there may be some examples that I am unaware of.
I believe some joker already released an NMAP patch that flips this bit. Who want's to bet there are scans occuring on the net with this bit set already? =)
Apparently the strategy is working. They aren't perfect, but is there another company out there today that is truly competing with them? Don't tell me Bay Networks, they are Nortel now and I believe their market value is roughly equivelant to what Cisco sells in any given quarter. Fore? They have been bought so many times I don't even know who owns them. Cabletron...RIP. 3COM, they backed out of the market's Cisco competed in and went after the low end market...you know, the Lynksys market =)
Well in all likelihood your complaint about the Lynksys site will be resolved. Cisco has consistently supported practically every OS on the market.
I am not quite sure I understand why reporters think they have some innate rights not granted to everyone else. If you transmit in a combat zone, using communication equipment that is essentially identical to that used for command and control by the military under attack in said country...you might get shot. The U.S military was just kind enough to point out to this reporter what would be blindingly obvious to most people. PS. No, television signals are not the same as satellite uplinks, but hey, she is a journalist, why should she actually be sure of her facts.