A 13 year old girl accused by a child of taking analgesics to school for menstrual pain is a catagory of crime identical to a drug pusher vending dope and requires "zero tolerance"?
It is legal in the U.S. to hit (assault/abuse/spank) a child and not legal to assault an adult.
It's perfectly legal in the U.S. to spank an adult, with consent.
Parents can give consent for their children to be spanked. It's not legal to spank a child without the parent/guardian's consent. It's also not legal to harm a child beyond a certain limit, which varies from place to place, with or without consent.
It's not legal to assault a child any more than it is to assault an adult. You may be unclear on what "assault" is, or you may be engaging in exaggeration to prove some sort of point. I'm not sure.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
This was the scariest bit in the article. Either the district is confident that their school rules encompass so many behaviors that it's impossible to complete school without breaking them, or they have serious psychological issues.
I keep picturing this assistant principal sitting alone in his darkened office, mumbling about all the rule-breakers running amok, and how if he could only catch the little bastards he'd show them, oh yes.
Never mind the people who make valuable contributions that are unpopular among code contributors (such as marketing, sales, accounting, etc).
That's a valid point. I suspect necessary services such as accounting are an outsourced cost, not part of the internal system, although I confess I haven't dug that deep.
Technical writers, sales, and such may get the shaft, if programmers turn out to (a) be overwhelming in numbers relative to other folks, and (b) be short-sighted enough to rank down non-programmers in the trust system regardless of work quality. It'll be interesting t'see how it plays out.
It's just like staying in the comfort of your own home, indulging in your hobby of programming, only you're somewhere else!
Exactly like that, except you would not, in fact, be somewhere else. Oh, and you get money (if the company makes any, and you've contributed). So basically, it's just like the opposite of what you said, except for the word "programming".
You need to talk to a lawyer, not the crowd on/. Don't listen to anyone who says 300 words are ok, non-commercial use is ok, etc. Those are all factors, but not definitive.
If there were any absolute comments saying "yea" or "nay", I'd agree that you can't trust 'em. Luckily, there isn't anyone (at this point) doing so.
A lawyer won't give a definitive answer, either, just a more expensive version of "I dunno". I'm reasonably certain any lawyer will advise you to remove the post just to be safe. I'm not a lawyer, tho', so that's not legal advice.
The real advantage of a lawyer would be if you choose not to delete the post. He or she can write a lawyery letter to Pearson's lawyers and, if necessary, represent you further. If you choose to remove the post, you absolutely do not need one.
But if I understand Chinese naming properly, Quan is her given name, not her surname.
That's a good point, except that "Quan" is a surname and "Xiaohang" is a given name. It's a pretty safe assumption that this is the case here, much like assuming the name "Stephanie" is given or the name "Miller" is a family name.
Yeah, violent video game ban is stupid, and all like that.
Restricting highly addictive video games to adults is actually worth consideration, in my opinion. Finding an appropriate way to measure addictiveness of a game prior to market release is one obstacle. Quantifying the effect of such a ban is another.
It would be nice to see controlled study of success metrics for children raised under and without such a ban. Of course that would take decades, but we have decades.
There are at least 36 Slashdot comments so far, and not one of them is bitching about Xiaohang going over to America and taking all yer physicist's jobs/university places.
Yeah, unpaid research in Switzerland belongs to Americans, damn it! The INS should look into this "CERN" outfit.
No wonder physics is phucked in the phucking head, their goddamned bug fixes are "revolutions"
Only to a reporter that uses emoticons in her professional bio.
[Quan's thesis advisor] added that Quan's contribution was "not atypical."
"Improvements to the algorithms are part of a normal process of scientific investigation that serve to improve the performance of the detectors," Tully explained. "It is this kind of work that constantly perfects the capabilities of the LHC experiments to do the best physics they can, and is business as usual for the physicists."
Mind you, it's a damned impressive contribution for a college senior. Miss Quan has opened a lot of doors for herself with this, I suspect.
Her last name is "09" and she is a "concentrator?"
That threw me, too. The '09 appears to be standard form for the Princetonian, representing her (expected) graduation year.
Who wrote this?
Tasnim Shamma
Personal Info
* Degree: A.B. in English, IPS in Journalism
* Hometown: Jamaica, NY
* Contact Email: tasnim.shamma@gmail.com
Personal Bio
Princeton '11, Brooklyn Technical High School '07, Daily Princetonian news/blog/multimedia staff, Orange Key tour guide, Daily Princetonian Class of 2001 Summer Journalism Program Alum'06/ Program Staff Associate '08 (www.princeton.edu/sjp), Aspiring Reporter (if there are jobs left when I graduate);)
Looks like the USA's per capita emissions of CO_2 are on the order of 10 times higher than China's (source: quick amalgam of Google results).
"On the order of" is a weasel phrase. Two and 97 are both on the order of ten.
I took a glance at Google results, myself. They're jammed up with contradictory environmental organizations all trying to scream louder than one another. It's just not a good topic to rely on top-search-result numbers.
Looking through some of them, I see:
-Cherry-picking data (Time for Change uses 2002 data in a 2008 release with a footnote saying emissions are up 10-15% since the data were gathered).
-Unsourced (and contradictory) data in lots of places. Several organizations appear to rely on one another for numbers, with no clues as to where the information came from.
-Some really bizarro stuff. China announced a few years back that "the west is responsible" for a third of its carbon dioxide emissions. They then released some numbers that appear to pawn off more than half of their CO2 on other nations.
-Original research. I know this ain't Wikipedia, but when an organization with an agenda relies on its own numbers, take a grain of salt. (I'm looking at you, Greenpeace.)
The newest neutral data I can dredge up online is from a UN report with 2004 numbers, which shows the States' per-type capita emissions about 3.75 times China's. Qatar at the time had more than three times the emissions per person than the US.
The EU has 2005 data, but only for Europe, with Luxembourg way ahead of the pack.
None of this is to say that every industrialized nation can't improve. One very insightful comment I saw in my looksies - and it makes me grind my teeth to say this - is from Greenpeace:
But to look at carbon dioxide emissions only by country is perhaps too narrow. The same question applies per business or even individual. Someone driving a gas-guzzler of a car is burning more fossil fuels then someone with a more efficient car, for example. Of course nations and businesses must be held accountable, but as individuals we each also make decisions the affect the climate.
... And they're right. "Think globally, act locally", and read "locally" as "personally". If you're concerned about carbon-type dioxide emissions, then start using public transit, wearing sweaters in the winter, easing up on hot water use, installing better insulation, voting in favor of reasonable (but tough) local emissions laws, and so on et cetera and all like that.
Because the authorities cited by the FSF referred to the "State Farm/Gore" test; the Government took the position that the "Williams" test, and not the "State Farm/Gore" test is applicable.
Okay, I think I begin to understand, although I had to look up "distinguishable" as it relates to law.
If I read you right, the FSF wants to rely on Beemer v. Doc Gore, which set a standard for punitive (non-statutory) damages in a tort, while the administration wants to use Choo-Choo Trains v. Williams, which upheld a large statutory damage claim. Both rulings are from SCOTUS (I didn't get that on the first pass), with the former much more recent. Both sides agree that statutory damages are held to due process review for excess, but disagree over which standard of review is correctly applied here.
It does sound disingenuous to agree that statutory damages hold to due process standards but ignore a recent ruling on due process standards for damages, instead choosing an old, favorable ruling specific to statutory damages. To me, a layman, it sounds as though they want very badly to claim that statutory damages should be held to a different standard but don't quite have the chutzpah.
Although since both briefs are from curious-type parties, I'm not sure they're obligated to address one another directly. It seems poor strategy to ignore the FSF's brief and hope it goes away, tho'.
Thank you for the clarification. Trying to understand legal wrangling without the education for it is rough - as a layman, it's hard to know what's fact, opinion, or spin when lawyers start making words, and I appreciate your accessibility in these Phonographic Impression Distributors v. The People discussions.
Of course I believe the larger issue in this story is the administration's involvement in general, but that's one on which I'm completely qualified to have an opinion (it sucks like a sucking sucker).
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
I damned well am not part of your revolution. I've sold words for money before, and I'll do so again. I'd happily sue the pants offa someone for redistributing my work for free, if I can catch 'em.
I object to the criminalization of a civil offense, the RIAA's invasions of privacy, extortion, barratry, and general thuggish behavior, the current and past administrations' acceptance of soft money bribery in exchange for political support to the industry, and jerks like you who think free downloads are jam today and jam tomorrow. I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright.
Technology has the potential to put a stop to much of the leeching practiced by publication and distribution houses and middlemen, which is a good thing. But if it's done at the expense of those who create - writers, painters, musicians, game designers, and even editors - as you advocate, then you become the leech.
it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I confess I haven't dug through the briefs. Leaving aside the question of why the White House is involved in this at all, this line confuses me.
First, if the WH's brief concedes that statutory damages are subject to excessive damage review, I don't know why they would address the FSF's argument further in that regard.
Secondly, if the administration cited SCOTUS and Circuit Court rulings, why would they need to address law review articles and District Court rulings? I'm under the impression that the higher courts trump the lower ones. I'd suggest, again with little knowledge of the matter, that the FSF failed by using weak citations. In an argument on Constitutional grounds, I have trouble seeing where the lower court rulings and journal articles should have more weight than a higher court ruling on a general case, even if the subject matter is more directly related.
Any insight into this from someone who's read the briefs and, ideally, studied some law would be appreciated.
Returning to the matter of the White House's involvement at all... guk. This seems to me to be, simply, beneath the White House. There's no reason I can see why they should feel they have an official interest in the matter. This should frankly be true when it comes to any Constitutional law decision of the courts; their job is to obey the big C as the courts interpret it, not to attempt to influence this. I've long held that the executive branch should show no interest in legal - especially Constitutional - interpretation beyond enforcing, obeying, and occasionally clarifying it.
Hey, guys, we support this. Why all the hate? An unnamed industry representative spoke to CNet and said "leadership is needed at the top" on this issue. He or she further went on to note that "we'll have views" on such an agency if it goes into legislation.
Seriously, what's up with the anonymous coward "industry representative" in TFA? The only reason I can think of to remain anonymous on this issue would be if that person has an ulterior motive he or she would prefer not be visible. It's stupid, he or she is stupid, and Stephanie Condon* is stupid for quoting him or her.
And, for the record, the whole idea is stupid. If DHS can't handle it, why would a new agency be able to? If DHS is that spectacularly incompetent, it needs new leadership, restructuring, or dissolution. If the NSA is obstructing their work, well, that's a damned good reason for Obama to have a cabinet-level advisor to help him referee.
*Yikes; wouldn't wanna go through high school with that name.
Slashdot Mirror
A 13 year old girl accused by a child of taking analgesics to school for menstrual pain is a catagory of crime identical to a drug pusher vending dope and requires "zero tolerance"?
Fixed that for ya.
It is legal in the U.S. to hit (assault/abuse/spank) a child and not legal to assault an adult.
It's perfectly legal in the U.S. to spank an adult, with consent.
Parents can give consent for their children to be spanked. It's not legal to spank a child without the parent/guardian's consent. It's also not legal to harm a child beyond a certain limit, which varies from place to place, with or without consent.
It's not legal to assault a child any more than it is to assault an adult. You may be unclear on what "assault" is, or you may be engaging in exaggeration to prove some sort of point. I'm not sure.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
This was the scariest bit in the article. Either the district is confident that their school rules encompass so many behaviors that it's impossible to complete school without breaking them, or they have serious psychological issues.
I keep picturing this assistant principal sitting alone in his darkened office, mumbling about all the rule-breakers running amok, and how if he could only catch the little bastards he'd show them, oh yes.
Unfortunately, apparently neither girl had the "get out of jail free" card to justify carrying them.
Let's remember here that Miss Redding was not carrying them or any other contraband.
Never mind the people who make valuable contributions that are unpopular among code contributors (such as marketing, sales, accounting, etc).
That's a valid point. I suspect necessary services such as accounting are an outsourced cost, not part of the internal system, although I confess I haven't dug that deep.
Technical writers, sales, and such may get the shaft, if programmers turn out to (a) be overwhelming in numbers relative to other folks, and (b) be short-sighted enough to rank down non-programmers in the trust system regardless of work quality. It'll be interesting t'see how it plays out.
It's just like staying in the comfort of your own home, indulging in your hobby of programming, only you're somewhere else!
Exactly like that, except you would not, in fact, be somewhere else. Oh, and you get money (if the company makes any, and you've contributed). So basically, it's just like the opposite of what you said, except for the word "programming".
so i can sit on my ass reading slashdot all day and say that i am contributing to research and development.
Sure, but by the model they've outlined, you won't earn anything for it unless other contributors find it valuable.
But seriously. how do you expect to make a profit?
I suspect they plan to sell a product. Possibly, and I'm going out on a limb here, the existing product the established company already sells.
Oh, you mean this company is not going to pay me and I should work for free?
Read. The. Fucking. Article.
No, really.
You need to talk to a lawyer, not the crowd on /. Don't listen to anyone who says 300 words are ok, non-commercial use is ok, etc. Those are all factors, but not definitive.
If there were any absolute comments saying "yea" or "nay", I'd agree that you can't trust 'em. Luckily, there isn't anyone (at this point) doing so.
A lawyer won't give a definitive answer, either, just a more expensive version of "I dunno". I'm reasonably certain any lawyer will advise you to remove the post just to be safe. I'm not a lawyer, tho', so that's not legal advice.
The real advantage of a lawyer would be if you choose not to delete the post. He or she can write a lawyery letter to Pearson's lawyers and, if necessary, represent you further. If you choose to remove the post, you absolutely do not need one.
TRUE OR FALSE (567 QUESTIONS)
1.I like mechanics magazines
2.I have a good appetite
3.I wake up fresh & rested most mornings
4.I think I would like the work of a librarian
5.I am easily awakened by noise
6.I like to read newspaper articles on crime
7.My hands and feet are usually warm enough
8.My daily life is full of things that keep me interested
9.I am about as able to work as I ever was
10.There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time
11.A person should try to understand his dreams and be guided by or take warning from them
12.I enjoy detective or mystery stories
13.I work under a great deal of tension
14.I have diarrhea once a month or more
15.Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about
16.I am sure I get a raw deal from life
17.My father was a good man
18.I am very seldom troubled by constipation
19.When I take a new, I like to be tipped off on whom should be gotten next to
20.My sex life is satisfactory
21.At times I have very much wanted to leave home
22.At times I have fits of laughing & crying that I cannot control
23.I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting
24.No one seems to understand me
25.I would like to be a singer
26.I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut when Iâ(TM)m in trouble
27.Evil spirits possess me at times
28.When someone does me a wrong I feel I should pay him back if I can, just for the principle of the thing.
29.I am bothered by acid stomach several times a week
30.At times I feel like swearing
31.I have nightmares every few nights
32.I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job
33.I have had very peculiar and strange experiences
34.I have a cough most of the time
35.If people had not had it in for me I would have been much more successful
36.I seldom worry about my heath
37.I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior
38.During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery
39.At times I feel like smashing things
40.Most any time I would rather sit and daydream than to do anything else
41.I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldnâ(TM)t take care of things because I couldnâ(TM)t âoeget goingâ
42.My family does not like the work I have chosen ( or the work I intend to choose for my life work)
43.My sleep is fitful and disturbed
44.Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over
45.I do not always tell the truth
46.My judgment is better than it ever was
47.Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all over without apparent cause
48.When I am with people I am bothered by hearing very queer things
49.It would be better if almost all laws were thrown away
50.My soul sometimes leaves my body
51.I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends
52.I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know but have not seen for a long time, unless they speak to me first
53.A minister can cure disease by praying and putting his hand on your head
54.I am liked by most people who know me
55.I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart or in my chest
56.As a youngster I was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up
57.I am a good mixer
58.Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would
59.I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did
60.I do not read every editorial in the newspaper everyday
61.I have not lived the right kind of life
62.Parts of my body often have feeling like burning, tingling, crawling, or like âoegoing to sleepâ
63.I have had no difficulty in starting or holding my bowel movement
64.I sometimes keep
But if I understand Chinese naming properly, Quan is her given name, not her surname.
That's a good point, except that "Quan" is a surname and "Xiaohang" is a given name. It's a pretty safe assumption that this is the case here, much like assuming the name "Stephanie" is given or the name "Miller" is a family name.
that my write in vote for Bigus Dickus didn't win...
What's so funny about Biggus Dickus? I have a vewy gweat fwiend named Biggus Dickus.
Yeah, violent video game ban is stupid, and all like that.
Restricting highly addictive video games to adults is actually worth consideration, in my opinion. Finding an appropriate way to measure addictiveness of a game prior to market release is one obstacle. Quantifying the effect of such a ban is another.
It would be nice to see controlled study of success metrics for children raised under and without such a ban. Of course that would take decades, but we have decades.
There are at least 36 Slashdot comments so far, and not one of them is bitching about Xiaohang going over to America and taking all yer physicist's jobs/university places.
Yeah, unpaid research in Switzerland belongs to Americans, damn it! The INS should look into this "CERN" outfit.
No wonder physics is phucked in the phucking head, their goddamned bug fixes are "revolutions"
Only to a reporter that uses emoticons in her professional bio.
[Quan's thesis advisor] added that Quan's contribution was "not atypical." "Improvements to the algorithms are part of a normal process of scientific investigation that serve to improve the performance of the detectors," Tully explained. "It is this kind of work that constantly perfects the capabilities of the LHC experiments to do the best physics they can, and is business as usual for the physicists."
Mind you, it's a damned impressive contribution for a college senior. Miss Quan has opened a lot of doors for herself with this, I suspect.
Her last name is "09" and she is a "concentrator?"
That threw me, too. The '09 appears to be standard form for the Princetonian, representing her (expected) graduation year.
Who wrote this?
Tasnim Shamma
Personal Info
* Degree: A.B. in English, IPS in Journalism
* Hometown: Jamaica, NY
* Contact Email: tasnim.shamma@gmail.com
Personal Bio
Princeton '11, Brooklyn Technical High School '07, Daily Princetonian news/blog/multimedia staff, Orange Key tour guide, Daily Princetonian Class of 2001 Summer Journalism Program Alum'06/ Program Staff Associate '08 (www.princeton.edu/sjp), Aspiring Reporter (if there are jobs left when I graduate) ;)
Off topic: Miss Quan is cute.
Looks like the USA's per capita emissions of CO_2 are on the order of 10 times higher than China's (source: quick amalgam of Google results).
"On the order of" is a weasel phrase. Two and 97 are both on the order of ten.
I took a glance at Google results, myself. They're jammed up with contradictory environmental organizations all trying to scream louder than one another. It's just not a good topic to rely on top-search-result numbers.
Looking through some of them, I see:
-Cherry-picking data (Time for Change uses 2002 data in a 2008 release with a footnote saying emissions are up 10-15% since the data were gathered).
-Unsourced (and contradictory) data in lots of places. Several organizations appear to rely on one another for numbers, with no clues as to where the information came from.
-Some really bizarro stuff. China announced a few years back that "the west is responsible" for a third of its carbon dioxide emissions. They then released some numbers that appear to pawn off more than half of their CO2 on other nations.
-Original research. I know this ain't Wikipedia, but when an organization with an agenda relies on its own numbers, take a grain of salt. (I'm looking at you, Greenpeace.)
The newest neutral data I can dredge up online is from a UN report with 2004 numbers, which shows the States' per-type capita emissions about 3.75 times China's. Qatar at the time had more than three times the emissions per person than the US.
The EU has 2005 data, but only for Europe, with Luxembourg way ahead of the pack.
None of this is to say that every industrialized nation can't improve. One very insightful comment I saw in my looksies - and it makes me grind my teeth to say this - is from Greenpeace:
But to look at carbon dioxide emissions only by country is perhaps too narrow. The same question applies per business or even individual. Someone driving a gas-guzzler of a car is burning more fossil fuels then someone with a more efficient car, for example. Of course nations and businesses must be held accountable, but as individuals we each also make decisions the affect the climate.
... And they're right. "Think globally, act locally", and read "locally" as "personally". If you're concerned about carbon-type dioxide emissions, then start using public transit, wearing sweaters in the winter, easing up on hot water use, installing better insulation, voting in favor of reasonable (but tough) local emissions laws, and so on et cetera and all like that.
Because the authorities cited by the FSF referred to the "State Farm/Gore" test; the Government took the position that the "Williams" test, and not the "State Farm/Gore" test is applicable.
Okay, I think I begin to understand, although I had to look up "distinguishable" as it relates to law.
If I read you right, the FSF wants to rely on Beemer v. Doc Gore, which set a standard for punitive (non-statutory) damages in a tort, while the administration wants to use Choo-Choo Trains v. Williams, which upheld a large statutory damage claim. Both rulings are from SCOTUS (I didn't get that on the first pass), with the former much more recent. Both sides agree that statutory damages are held to due process review for excess, but disagree over which standard of review is correctly applied here.
It does sound disingenuous to agree that statutory damages hold to due process standards but ignore a recent ruling on due process standards for damages, instead choosing an old, favorable ruling specific to statutory damages. To me, a layman, it sounds as though they want very badly to claim that statutory damages should be held to a different standard but don't quite have the chutzpah.
Although since both briefs are from curious-type parties, I'm not sure they're obligated to address one another directly. It seems poor strategy to ignore the FSF's brief and hope it goes away, tho'.
Thank you for the clarification. Trying to understand legal wrangling without the education for it is rough - as a layman, it's hard to know what's fact, opinion, or spin when lawyers start making words, and I appreciate your accessibility in these Phonographic Impression Distributors v. The People discussions.
Of course I believe the larger issue in this story is the administration's involvement in general, but that's one on which I'm completely qualified to have an opinion (it sucks like a sucking sucker).
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
I damned well am not part of your revolution. I've sold words for money before, and I'll do so again. I'd happily sue the pants offa someone for redistributing my work for free, if I can catch 'em.
I object to the criminalization of a civil offense, the RIAA's invasions of privacy, extortion, barratry, and general thuggish behavior, the current and past administrations' acceptance of soft money bribery in exchange for political support to the industry, and jerks like you who think free downloads are jam today and jam tomorrow. I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright.
Technology has the potential to put a stop to much of the leeching practiced by publication and distribution houses and middlemen, which is a good thing. But if it's done at the expense of those who create - writers, painters, musicians, game designers, and even editors - as you advocate, then you become the leech.
it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I confess I haven't dug through the briefs. Leaving aside the question of why the White House is involved in this at all, this line confuses me.
First, if the WH's brief concedes that statutory damages are subject to excessive damage review, I don't know why they would address the FSF's argument further in that regard.
Secondly, if the administration cited SCOTUS and Circuit Court rulings, why would they need to address law review articles and District Court rulings? I'm under the impression that the higher courts trump the lower ones. I'd suggest, again with little knowledge of the matter, that the FSF failed by using weak citations. In an argument on Constitutional grounds, I have trouble seeing where the lower court rulings and journal articles should have more weight than a higher court ruling on a general case, even if the subject matter is more directly related.
Any insight into this from someone who's read the briefs and, ideally, studied some law would be appreciated.
Returning to the matter of the White House's involvement at all... guk. This seems to me to be, simply, beneath the White House. There's no reason I can see why they should feel they have an official interest in the matter. This should frankly be true when it comes to any Constitutional law decision of the courts; their job is to obey the big C as the courts interpret it, not to attempt to influence this. I've long held that the executive branch should show no interest in legal - especially Constitutional - interpretation beyond enforcing, obeying, and occasionally clarifying it.
It's not clear what the White House is thinking here.
Probably the White House is thinking, "Huh? Why is everyone screaming at us about proposed legislation in Congress?"
It's good to see that the White House thinks cyber security is important enough to move it into the Whitehouse,
The White House hasn't said anything about this proposed legislation.
with baited breath...
Speaking of Microsoft and security, I think you've picked up a worm.
Hey, guys, we support this. Why all the hate? An unnamed industry representative spoke to CNet and said "leadership is needed at the top" on this issue. He or she further went on to note that "we'll have views" on such an agency if it goes into legislation.
Seriously, what's up with the anonymous coward "industry representative" in TFA? The only reason I can think of to remain anonymous on this issue would be if that person has an ulterior motive he or she would prefer not be visible. It's stupid, he or she is stupid, and Stephanie Condon* is stupid for quoting him or her.
And, for the record, the whole idea is stupid. If DHS can't handle it, why would a new agency be able to? If DHS is that spectacularly incompetent, it needs new leadership, restructuring, or dissolution. If the NSA is obstructing their work, well, that's a damned good reason for Obama to have a cabinet-level advisor to help him referee.
*Yikes; wouldn't wanna go through high school with that name.