Given the fallout after the Menezes killing and the Forest Gate raid fiasco I don't think the UK government has much leeway to concoct something like this.
Politically the security services, and especially the London Metropolitan Police, need to get this one right. I'm pretty confident they think they're right on this one, although I don't have unlimited faith that they actually have, given previous mistakes.
CSS's real benefit was that the layout not only could be changed easily but also could become dynamic: The content is stored in a database and presented as necessary, with instant updates. With dynamic content, it's possible for 100 people to go to the same Web site and get 100 different versions.
I think his real problem is he doesn't have a clue about what CSS actually is..
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but my opinion is that armed rebelions do not have a track record of establishing democracy. You put it very well when you said: the value of a single person with a gun is limited. Several people with guns is better, but still probably ineffectual in the long run. But a few thousand people with guns, acting in concert, is an army.
The problem is that armies have commanders. Maybe the rebellion will overthrow the tyranny, but off the top of my head I can't think of a case where an armed rebellion handed over power directly to a democracy.
I'm sure it must have happened, and there are probably more examples where an armed rebellion was usurped by a democratic movement, but I think the most likely outcome is civil war and/or tyranny.
I realise this has limited relevence to the US - a sophisticated democracy will probably stabalise on a form of government that is acceptable to its citizens - but for societies like the US, how likely is it that armed rebellion will be neccasery? A government that makes any pretence of having a mandate from its citizens cannot stand up to the sort of massed protests that the populace of a mature democracy can create.
Is it likely that the US people would cross the threshold into armed rebellion against their government before the protests reached the point that they would bring down any democratic governemnt peacefully? And would any regime, that could put down massed protests from tens of millions of its citizens, not have the ability and the will to send the army to crush any militia equipped with small arms.
That is essentially my point: I simply don't agree that an armed populace could do more good than harm in my country (UK) or yours. To be honest I think it more likely that an ill conceived armed revolt would grant a government an excuse to crack down than restore democracy.
Actually in my book, its as long as I have my firearms. The government can claim to do this that and the other thing, however with an armed populace, the goverment must still tread softly.
Gun ownership does not guarantee freedom. Saddam's Iraq had high gun ownership, but it didn't topple his regime.
Lack of gun ownership does not condemn you to tyranny. The democratisation of the old eastern block happened via peaceful mass protests (ok peacefulish, but still protests not armed revolt), same with the recent "colour revolutions" in the former USSR itself.
If a tyranny ever did embed itself in the US (I'm skeptical myself but anyway) do you think it will be thrown out by an armed militia? Wouldn't it be more likely that the tyranny would organise the armed militia into a defender of their regime? (again, reference Saddam's Iraq).
I can accept - or at least be ambivalent towards - many of the arguments made by supporters of gun ownership (deterence of crime, right to defend you and yours, etc.), but the guns == freedom thing really irritates me.
That requires money, lots of money: That doesn't come from poor soddy idiots like you and me: It comes from corporates and SIG which have their own vested interests to protect.
Total spending on the UK general election of 2005 by the three main parties was a touch under £40 million ($70 - $80 million). This might make you realise just how much less influence corporate lobbys have in the UK than the US.
When gas is $4 a gallon, and all content on all media is rented and controlled by large corporations, and your college textbooks are inaccesible because you missed a payment maybe it will come into focus.
I've obviously missed a memo, when did the price of oil start getting blamed on the US's impending slide into tyranny?
gas is $4 a gallon, and all content on all media is rented and controlled by large corporations, and your college textbooks are inaccesible because you missed a payment maybe it will come into focus.
I've obviously missed a memo, when did the price of oil start getting blamed on the US's impending slide into tyranny?
The use of force (taking down servers) by a group (spammers) against people/property (blue & others) with the intention of intimidating socieities (blues users) for ideological (financial too) reasons.
I disagree that these reasons are ideological - the motive is money, even if intimidation is being used. If Al Quida or whoever started trying to bring down the internet, that would be terrorism, but this isn't.
I'm not saying that a criminal can't terroise someone, but I don't think that makes them a terrorist. Terrorists (the ones we have all these new laws to protect ourselves from) are people who believe in a cause, people who have supporters that believe they are freedom fighters. They are far more dangerous than normal criminals, because their cause is larger than them, and even if you kill one you make a martyr who helps recruiting the next.
Maybe we need stronger laws to catch these kinds of criminals, but if so a case should be made for it on the merits. Labling suspected criminals as terrorists and then using existing anti-terrorism legislation to go after them is a very slippery slope IMO.
I don't know exactly where you are in the chain, but the impression from a merchants point of view is that no one gives a rat's arse about (cardholder not present) fraud except the merchant. We cover 100% of the losses, we even get charged a handling fee on chargebacks!
I'm not really disagreeing that the merchant should be resposible for most, or even all, of carholder not present losses. I'm just irritated by the complete lack of interest from card issuers, merchant service providers and the police.
A lot of fraud attempts are blindingly obvious, and when you get an order like that you not only know it's a fraud, you know where the fraudster is going to be to receive the parcel. It seems so easy for police to dress as couriers, deliver a dummy parcel, and nick whoever signs for it - I even know of this being done once, many years ago.
However the police don't care when they get a call from a merchant over an attempted petty crime. The big card companies - who could certainly work with the police to set up some sort of scheme to do this - don't care because they don't suffer finacially.
The problem at the moment is that online/mailorder fraud is virtualy a risk free business. It should and could be a very risky one if anyone could be bothered to make it so, but they can't.
This is off the top my head cos I'm too lazy to check, but I think the conversion tracking Google provides is done by cookies - cookie is set when you click the ad, probably with a 30 day expiry or similar. When you complete the order, if you accepted and still have the cookie it gets logged (you put a bit of code on your "conversion pages" to use Google's conversion tracking).
Possibly not a nation, but England is certainly a country. Personally I would call England a nation as well, although it's certainly not a soverign state. There's a good wikipedia artical here.
It sucks if you're a customer whose job was also offshored, and now you can't even afford the service for which you would be getting support in the first place.
It's great if you get a job supplying the rapidly developing Indian market, and can now afford to subscribe to this supported service.
I think it's more to do with getting into your online banking - getting hold of cc details is not the hard part of credit card fraud, it's using them. I doubt they'd go to this trouble just for credit card details.
Sure, but if we had effective legislation in the developed world to mandate *safe* recycling of computers, there would still be a similar number of computers world-wide to be recycled, it's just that those who did the work would have better working conditions.
Basically the cost would be shifted to the purchase price of computer equipment (assuming an EU WEEE type legislation), from the health of the poor in the developing world. I don't see this as a bad thing myself.
Yeah, so no individual will be able to afford a 4 letter domain...
But so what really.. how many people are going to own 4 letter/popular generic domains? Very few, since there are a lot more people than there are domains. Most who do get them will be selling them on anyway, which is nice for them, but doesn't create anything of value to anyone else.
In the end, valuable domains will be owned by those willing to pay what they're worth for them - why not have that money go into public coffers rather than domain name speculators?
Slashdot Mirror
This Wikipedia page has good background information.
Given the fallout after the Menezes killing and the Forest Gate raid fiasco I don't think the UK government has much leeway to concoct something like this.
Politically the security services, and especially the London Metropolitan Police, need to get this one right. I'm pretty confident they think they're right on this one, although I don't have unlimited faith that they actually have, given previous mistakes.
You didn't get the memo?
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but my opinion is that armed rebelions do not have a track record of establishing democracy. You put it very well when you said: the value of a single person with a gun is limited. Several people with guns is better, but still probably ineffectual in the long run. But a few thousand people with guns, acting in concert, is an army.
The problem is that armies have commanders. Maybe the rebellion will overthrow the tyranny, but off the top of my head I can't think of a case where an armed rebellion handed over power directly to a democracy.
I'm sure it must have happened, and there are probably more examples where an armed rebellion was usurped by a democratic movement, but I think the most likely outcome is civil war and/or tyranny.
I realise this has limited relevence to the US - a sophisticated democracy will probably stabalise on a form of government that is acceptable to its citizens - but for societies like the US, how likely is it that armed rebellion will be neccasery? A government that makes any pretence of having a mandate from its citizens cannot stand up to the sort of massed protests that the populace of a mature democracy can create.
Is it likely that the US people would cross the threshold into armed rebellion against their government before the protests reached the point that they would bring down any democratic governemnt peacefully? And would any regime, that could put down massed protests from tens of millions of its citizens, not have the ability and the will to send the army to crush any militia equipped with small arms.
That is essentially my point: I simply don't agree that an armed populace could do more good than harm in my country (UK) or yours. To be honest I think it more likely that an ill conceived armed revolt would grant a government an excuse to crack down than restore democracy.
Lack of gun ownership does not condemn you to tyranny. The democratisation of the old eastern block happened via peaceful mass protests (ok peacefulish, but still protests not armed revolt), same with the recent "colour revolutions" in the former USSR itself.
If a tyranny ever did embed itself in the US (I'm skeptical myself but anyway) do you think it will be thrown out by an armed militia? Wouldn't it be more likely that the tyranny would organise the armed militia into a defender of their regime? (again, reference Saddam's Iraq).
I can accept - or at least be ambivalent towards - many of the arguments made by supporters of gun ownership (deterence of crime, right to defend you and yours, etc.), but the guns == freedom thing really irritates me.
Why is the result important?
Because it's the truth.
gas is $4 a gallon, and all content on all media is rented and controlled by large corporations, and your college textbooks are inaccesible because you missed a payment maybe it will come into focus. I've obviously missed a memo, when did the price of oil start getting blamed on the US's impending slide into tyranny?
Right. I thought it was going to be Darl McBride, but he seems to have cut his own dick of already.
I'm not saying that a criminal can't terroise someone, but I don't think that makes them a terrorist. Terrorists (the ones we have all these new laws to protect ourselves from) are people who believe in a cause, people who have supporters that believe they are freedom fighters. They are far more dangerous than normal criminals, because their cause is larger than them, and even if you kill one you make a martyr who helps recruiting the next.
Maybe we need stronger laws to catch these kinds of criminals, but if so a case should be made for it on the merits. Labling suspected criminals as terrorists and then using existing anti-terrorism legislation to go after them is a very slippery slope IMO.
Well for that example Google Trends will give you useful info: clicky
The answer seems to be the two word, not hyphenated.
I don't know exactly where you are in the chain, but the impression from a merchants point of view is that no one gives a rat's arse about (cardholder not present) fraud except the merchant. We cover 100% of the losses, we even get charged a handling fee on chargebacks!
I'm not really disagreeing that the merchant should be resposible for most, or even all, of carholder not present losses. I'm just irritated by the complete lack of interest from card issuers, merchant service providers and the police.
A lot of fraud attempts are blindingly obvious, and when you get an order like that you not only know it's a fraud, you know where the fraudster is going to be to receive the parcel. It seems so easy for police to dress as couriers, deliver a dummy parcel, and nick whoever signs for it - I even know of this being done once, many years ago.
However the police don't care when they get a call from a merchant over an attempted petty crime. The big card companies - who could certainly work with the police to set up some sort of scheme to do this - don't care because they don't suffer finacially.
The problem at the moment is that online/mailorder fraud is virtualy a risk free business. It should and could be a very risky one if anyone could be bothered to make it so, but they can't.
n jst stp wstng ltrs. y dnt nd vwls nywy!!!
This is off the top my head cos I'm too lazy to check, but I think the conversion tracking Google provides is done by cookies - cookie is set when you click the ad, probably with a 30 day expiry or similar. When you complete the order, if you accepted and still have the cookie it gets logged (you put a bit of code on your "conversion pages" to use Google's conversion tracking).
Possibly not a nation, but England is certainly a country. Personally I would call England a nation as well, although it's certainly not a soverign state. There's a good wikipedia artical here.
It sucks if you're a customer whose job was also offshored, and now you can't even afford the service for which you would be getting support in the first place.
It's great if you get a job supplying the rapidly developing Indian market, and can now afford to subscribe to this supported service.
I think it's more to do with getting into your online banking - getting hold of cc details is not the hard part of credit card fraud, it's using them. I doubt they'd go to this trouble just for credit card details.
I guess they just have some moral standards..
Bulletproof hosting..
Sure, but if we had effective legislation in the developed world to mandate *safe* recycling of computers, there would still be a similar number of computers world-wide to be recycled, it's just that those who did the work would have better working conditions.
Basically the cost would be shifted to the purchase price of computer equipment (assuming an EU WEEE type legislation), from the health of the poor in the developing world. I don't see this as a bad thing myself.
For is it not written, "the iron will lie down with the lamp."
Yeah, so no individual will be able to afford a 4 letter domain...
But so what really.. how many people are going to own 4 letter/popular generic domains? Very few, since there are a lot more people than there are domains. Most who do get them will be selling them on anyway, which is nice for them, but doesn't create anything of value to anyone else.
In the end, valuable domains will be owned by those willing to pay what they're worth for them - why not have that money go into public coffers rather than domain name speculators?