As regards your George bush claims, I can say only this in light of your arguements.
You are essentially arguing that George Bush as a US President cannot be questioned or made to stand liable/responsible for all and any of his actions while he is in power. In essence as per you, he can do whatever he wishes and refuse to be brought to liability by either the International courts and much more importantly, not even the congress and the will of the people.
That would be the definition of a dictator, wouldn't you think? Someone whose actions and decisions cannot be questioned. If they are, he will just claim "executive privilege" as he did just now.
I am not warping anything mate. I am just letting you see what your own statements essentially are. Not that Bush himself is of concern. He is, in all evidence, just a puppet for powerful corporates. Sadly, Bush will go and yet corporates will remain in control.
Your country, its democracy and constitution are horribly broken at the moment. My sympathies.
Which part of "I was not addressing his George Bush part of the two quotes" are you unable to understand?
If you are not totally blind or schizophrenic, you would have noticed that you had quoted *TWO* of his sentences. Learn to quote only the parts you are concerned with, then.
Yes, yes, we know what a botnet is; and VNC. It's stretching it a bit to think this "super hacker" was doing all this stuff on a 56K dial up and 4 bit VNC don't you think ?
Why is it "stretching" things?
If you know what a botnet is, what on earth makes you think they need some kind of broadband connection to be controlled? For that matter are you under some illusion that only people with a broadband connection have the capability to become a so-called "super hacker"?
Here is a clue : Most crackers/hackers rely on exploiting buffer overflows, bugs etc. in remote computers to gain control/access. A broadband connection is not necessarily required for that, most of the times(barring some man-in-the-middle/spoofing attacks). For that matter, pre-broadband there were tons of hacking attacks that did indeed work with just 56k connections, since that was all that was available. All that seems obvious is that a 56k connection was all what he was able to afford. And he made do with it.
Please watch a little less movies and novels, and actually read up on how exploits usually happen.
Yeah, I would have thought so. So why did the Russian government use radioactive material to attack someone in a foreign country ? Don't you think that the trail (which spread to several places in London) could be likened to a dirty bomb ? And how many places can you get that stuff ? Two or three, which makes it highly likely to be state sanctioned. Do you think that's a fair comparison, Russia can assassinate someone in your country using a highly contaminating radioactive toxin against trying to extradite a gangster ?
If you want conspiracy theories, here is a far more likely and logical one. If russia wanted to assassinate this guy, they would have simply had him poisoned, or killed in a road accident, or just shot by a sniper... no? A simple assassination would have made much less noise and news than using expensive radio-active material. It would have meant no bad press for Russia.
But if you take it that the other government actually *wanted* russia to look bad, usage of radio-active materials makes sense, since it ensured that people will be terrorised and media will sensationalize it even more. So yeah state-sanctioned... but not by Russia, if you think logically.
Think before you post.
Learn to read and quote properly? *Two* statements were quoted. I take it that you are unable to comprehend that I chose to respond to one of them?
we know this because the UN has condemned [the USA] as a human rights abuser
we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with
Or are we nitpicking about symantics... perhaps something lame like "since there was no formal 'condemnation', it automatically means no human rights violations occurred.
Ever heard of "abu gharaib"?
And pretty obvious that a US President can never even be indicted for war crimes, if he simply is going to exercise "executive privilege" to curb any and all investigations against him and his allies.
What kind of clueless moderator mods this informative???
I take it that you have not heard of VNC or botnets?
A botnet is where a hacker takes control of a large number of computers(via viruses, trojans or other means) and uses them as a large cluster to perform collaborative tasks.
VNC is a protocol where you can send the screenshot images of the display to a remote computer, as well as providing control of keyboard and mouse, thus in effect allowing remote control of a computer.
And one would assume that a simple gun or just a normal bomb will be sufficient for state-sanctioned assassinations, no? Been reading/watching too many thriller novels/movies, are we?
At least in the private sector, the customers of your space ship flight can sue you if they die in a fireball because some dumbass was too eager to push the go stick or ignored the warnings of the low level engineers.
I am glad you so firmly believe in the after-life. US courts, on the other hand, do not.
Oh, but they would! If there was any sane way of enforcing any such thing.
With VOIP they actually do think such enforcement is possible. Not on individual basis... but for any large scale operator that isn't paying the license fee to act as a VOIP operator, to the government.
True. But if you find out that revenue from source A is not sufficient to match the loss of revenue from source B, what do you do?
They have already fixed the amount your average broadband company pays to the government for its license fee. Now they find out that VOIP is disturbing that equation by making them loss the money from international calls that these Indian corporates make. So all they have done is that any VOIP operator doing business in India, now has to pay a license fee for that too. Thus the revenue is back to what was planned.
It has nothing to do with censorship or net neutrality. And everything to do with the money.
The India government is concerned only regards the bulk loss of revenue from the international calls from corporate companies. Their concern are the Indian operators setting up shop in some highrise housing lots of companies, and offering these companies much cheaper way of making international calls via VOIP.
Are you under some illusion that these corporates don't have access to a computer or a fast internet connection?
let us see... coke/pepsi, medicines, mc donald's, branded clothes, accessories etc., tons of food products, pesticides, entertainment media products(movies/tv channels etc.), weapons...
... all for a market of 1 billion plus.
erm.... what you were saying again, before you put your foot in the mouth?
That is actually a myth. Most Indian IT companies tend to make you sign long-term contracts/bonds. even if you were willing to take chances with this, your new employer ensures you play along by asking you to provide a resignation acceptance letter, experience certificate, refernce etc. from your previous employer.
It is not exactly slavery and you can walk out... but at the cost of pretty much all you may have saved for a year, as the penalty for breaking the contract.
And this is actually the norm. Perhaps you yourself kept asking for replacements? or at least made it seem like you didn't like the people you were currently working with? It seems very very likely, that this was indeed the case.
Regardless, in IT, you have to plan your project well. The risk of the project team member leaving is supposedly one of the major considerations. I am surprised you didn't discuss this with the company you were contracting and ensured some sort of guarantee against that exact situation? i.e. at least discuss how they would handle high turnover?
In addition, by your own admission, you also failed to do your homework and actually research a bit about the company you were contracting. There are thousands of IT companies in India and lots of them do this kind of long-term contracting with their employees. The high-ish salaries they pay out are incentive enough for employees to agree to such contracts/bonds. It is pretty much the nor,. I am surprised you didn't take time out to find even one such company, but rather gave out your project to the first one that turned up/was referred to you.
It reflects badly on your project management skills as well as your lack of planning and foresight.
Don't be stupid. They are worried about the loss of revenue to their own Telephone department, thanks to all the corporates making their mass-scale international phone calls via the unregistered VOIP operator, instead of via their own telephony system. The unregistered Indian VOIP operator is stealing government revenue away and paying back the government nothing.
The VOIP is still legal in India. You just need to pay the license fee to the government for it. And any company expecting to do business in India must pay for the same priviledge anyways. Same as all foreign companies doing business in USA are still expected to pay their taxes to USA govt. Stop being a hypocrite.
Don't be nuts. Yes it *is* a phone company wanting to maintain their monopoly. What you are obviously clueless about is the fact that International Telephony in India is more or less government run. *Indian* VOIP operators open up shop, and lure corporates to switching to their services... which means loss of revenue to the government run telephone company for all the international calls that would have otherwise been made through government's service.
They couldn't care less about what American companies are doing abroad. In any country, you can't expect to steal away government revenue and expect to win.
Basically telephony in India is government run. In short any payment you make for making phone calls international or otherwise, counts towards what is a major revenue for the government. The government has already made substantial investment in the telephonic infrastructure as well, to simply abandon it.
Now enters the Internet into the picture. It is much much cheaper, and since you are already paying your broadband bill anyways, calls are virtually free. Which means the public and businesses stop using the traditional system and government starts losing its revenue.
It is not much of a problem if just some individuals do it. But lots of operators have cropped up which set up shop in some highrise housing lots of companies and offer this cheaper alternative to *all* the companies in it, to make their calls abroad. Government starts losing substantial revenue as a result.
It is not even easy to tax these operators. This being internet, there is no easy way of tracking how many calls were made and for how long. And each call made via VOIP means loss of business for the government run telephony department.
As a result you see the ban. It is not censorship. All it means is, that if you setup some major operation offering VOIP services to businesses... and take substantial revenue away from the government... it is illegal. It is all about the money.
Me : all of us humans are mortals and will die someday at least by natural causes.
zmollusc: OMFG! when am I going to die? Should I cancel my vacation plans for next year?
Me : Hard to say, dude. Human deaths from natural cause, are random and cannot be predicted with any accuracy.
zmollusc : OMG!LOL! I am immortal!!!
Thing is... either you subscribe to the view that you can trust the kids or you don't.
Former renders this whole debate moot actually. But since the whole "ban internet" thing treats kids as complete idiots who must be protected by themselves, I would suggest making the parents answerable for any lapses, instead of blaming computer games or internet companies etc.
Not a troll, not insane and not stupid. Learn to comprehend the arguement please.
Yes ofcourse. We can definitely use baptism or holy trinity in conext of Islam. They are just words and can be used anywhere, right?
Oh wait... it doesn't seems to make much sense that way. But then again, none of your statements make sense at all. Learn to think before typing away rheoterics.
After yammering tons of nonsense about "caste", now you are not an Indian?
In that case, you are an even bigger jerk and idiot since,
A) You have been jabbering like a monkey, about a concept you have no first-hand comprehension of, and
B) You have been trying to misrepresent a community, that you had no *right* to represent in the first place. Which other community/country, pray thee, has "caste" as part of its social structure?
And my point was that normally he would be correct.
But with numerous stories of RIAA bungling up and filing lawsuits without evidence, general public is all too aware of their tactics. Hence now the natural tendency is to doubt.
Heck, even the people who quite possibly *did* pirate stuff, when sued, demanded to know which specific files RIAA was accusing them of pirating. RIAA's reply : "We don't know. Hand us his harddisk and we will see if there are any". Guilty till proved innocent. General public now knows how stupid RIAA is. So no, the natural assumption will be to doubt RIAA's claims of having any evidence, even if you *were* actually engaging in piracy. RIAA has bungled up *that* much.
Slashdot Mirror
You are essentially arguing that George Bush as a US President cannot be questioned or made to stand liable/responsible for all and any of his actions while he is in power. In essence as per you, he can do whatever he wishes and refuse to be brought to liability by either the International courts and much more importantly, not even the congress and the will of the people.
That would be the definition of a dictator, wouldn't you think? Someone whose actions and decisions cannot be questioned. If they are, he will just claim "executive privilege" as he did just now.
I am not warping anything mate. I am just letting you see what your own statements essentially are. Not that Bush himself is of concern. He is, in all evidence, just a puppet for powerful corporates. Sadly, Bush will go and yet corporates will remain in control.
Your country, its democracy and constitution are horribly broken at the moment. My sympathies.
If you are not totally blind or schizophrenic, you would have noticed that you had quoted *TWO* of his sentences. Learn to quote only the parts you are concerned with, then.
Why is it "stretching" things?
If you know what a botnet is, what on earth makes you think they need some kind of broadband connection to be controlled? For that matter are you under some illusion that only people with a broadband connection have the capability to become a so-called "super hacker"?
Here is a clue : Most crackers/hackers rely on exploiting buffer overflows, bugs etc. in remote computers to gain control/access. A broadband connection is not necessarily required for that, most of the times(barring some man-in-the-middle/spoofing attacks). For that matter, pre-broadband there were tons of hacking attacks that did indeed work with just 56k connections, since that was all that was available. All that seems obvious is that a 56k connection was all what he was able to afford. And he made do with it.
Please watch a little less movies and novels, and actually read up on how exploits usually happen.
Yeah, I would have thought so. So why did the Russian government use radioactive material to attack someone in a foreign country ? Don't you think that the trail (which spread to several places in London) could be likened to a dirty bomb ? And how many places can you get that stuff ? Two or three, which makes it highly likely to be state sanctioned. Do you think that's a fair comparison, Russia can assassinate someone in your country using a highly contaminating radioactive toxin against trying to extradite a gangster ?
If you want conspiracy theories, here is a far more likely and logical one. If russia wanted to assassinate this guy, they would have simply had him poisoned, or killed in a road accident, or just shot by a sniper... no? A simple assassination would have made much less noise and news than using expensive radio-active material. It would have meant no bad press for Russia.
But if you take it that the other government actually *wanted* russia to look bad, usage of radio-active materials makes sense, since it ensured that people will be terrorised and media will sensationalize it even more. So yeah state-sanctioned... but not by Russia, if you think logically. Think before you post.
If there were no civilian politicians and leaders, there *would* be no war, most of the times!
we know this because the UN has condemned [the USA] as a human rights abuser we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with
Or are we nitpicking about symantics... perhaps something lame like "since there was no formal 'condemnation', it automatically means no human rights violations occurred.
Ever heard of "abu gharaib"?
And pretty obvious that a US President can never even be indicted for war crimes, if he simply is going to exercise "executive privilege" to curb any and all investigations against him and his allies.
Idiot.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/19/usdom13418
Reality is not what Bush preaches from his pulpit.
I assume that now you or someone else will post a large list of countries that have worse records?
Fine. But none of those are taking a holier-than-thou approach for excuses of invading other countries, are they?
I take it that you have not heard of VNC or botnets?
A botnet is where a hacker takes control of a large number of computers(via viruses, trojans or other means) and uses them as a large cluster to perform collaborative tasks.
VNC is a protocol where you can send the screenshot images of the display to a remote computer, as well as providing control of keyboard and mouse, thus in effect allowing remote control of a computer.
And one would assume that a simple gun or just a normal bomb will be sufficient for state-sanctioned assassinations, no? Been reading/watching too many thriller novels/movies, are we?
I am glad you so firmly believe in the after-life. US courts, on the other hand, do not.
What is your point?
With VOIP they actually do think such enforcement is possible. Not on individual basis... but for any large scale operator that isn't paying the license fee to act as a VOIP operator, to the government.
They have already fixed the amount your average broadband company pays to the government for its license fee. Now they find out that VOIP is disturbing that equation by making them loss the money from international calls that these Indian corporates make. So all they have done is that any VOIP operator doing business in India, now has to pay a license fee for that too. Thus the revenue is back to what was planned.
It has nothing to do with censorship or net neutrality. And everything to do with the money.
The India government is concerned only regards the bulk loss of revenue from the international calls from corporate companies. Their concern are the Indian operators setting up shop in some highrise housing lots of companies, and offering these companies much cheaper way of making international calls via VOIP.
Are you under some illusion that these corporates don't have access to a computer or a fast internet connection?
Lol - because you actually are a genius enough to think they would leave the CD drive in and enabled, when they are disabling even the USB ports!
erm .... what you were saying again, before you put your foot in the mouth?
It is not exactly slavery and you can walk out
And this is actually the norm. Perhaps you yourself kept asking for replacements? or at least made it seem like you didn't like the people you were currently working with? It seems very very likely, that this was indeed the case.
Regardless, in IT, you have to plan your project well. The risk of the project team member leaving is supposedly one of the major considerations. I am surprised you didn't discuss this with the company you were contracting and ensured some sort of guarantee against that exact situation? i.e. at least discuss how they would handle high turnover?
In addition, by your own admission, you also failed to do your homework and actually research a bit about the company you were contracting. There are thousands of IT companies in India and lots of them do this kind of long-term contracting with their employees. The high-ish salaries they pay out are incentive enough for employees to agree to such contracts/bonds. It is pretty much the nor,. I am surprised you didn't take time out to find even one such company, but rather gave out your project to the first one that turned up/was referred to you.
It reflects badly on your project management skills as well as your lack of planning and foresight.
The VOIP is still legal in India. You just need to pay the license fee to the government for it. And any company expecting to do business in India must pay for the same priviledge anyways. Same as all foreign companies doing business in USA are still expected to pay their taxes to USA govt. Stop being a hypocrite.
They couldn't care less about what American companies are doing abroad. In any country, you can't expect to steal away government revenue and expect to win.
Now enters the Internet into the picture. It is much much cheaper, and since you are already paying your broadband bill anyways, calls are virtually free. Which means the public and businesses stop using the traditional system and government starts losing its revenue.
It is not much of a problem if just some individuals do it. But lots of operators have cropped up which set up shop in some highrise housing lots of companies and offer this cheaper alternative to *all* the companies in it, to make their calls abroad. Government starts losing substantial revenue as a result.
It is not even easy to tax these operators. This being internet, there is no easy way of tracking how many calls were made and for how long. And each call made via VOIP means loss of business for the government run telephony department.
As a result you see the ban. It is not censorship. All it means is, that if you setup some major operation offering VOIP services to businesses ... and take substantial revenue away from the government... it is illegal. It is all about the money.
Me : all of us humans are mortals and will die someday at least by natural causes.
zmollusc: OMFG! when am I going to die? Should I cancel my vacation plans for next year?
Me : Hard to say, dude. Human deaths from natural cause, are random and cannot be predicted with any accuracy.
zmollusc : OMG!LOL! I am immortal!!!
Not anymore. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is _2002_Jan_14/ai_81765053/
Patriot Act ensures that you now have to watch both what you say and even what you *think* http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/25/011 1231/, very very carefully.
So what will separation of opinions from facts achieve?
Thing is ... either you subscribe to the view that you can trust the kids or you don't.
Former renders this whole debate moot actually. But since the whole "ban internet" thing treats kids as complete idiots who must be protected by themselves, I would suggest making the parents answerable for any lapses, instead of blaming computer games or internet companies etc.
Not a troll, not insane and not stupid. Learn to comprehend the arguement please.
Oh wait... it doesn't seems to make much sense that way. But then again, none of your statements make sense at all. Learn to think before typing away rheoterics.
In that case, you are an even bigger jerk and idiot since,
A) You have been jabbering like a monkey, about a concept you have no first-hand comprehension of, and
B) You have been trying to misrepresent a community, that you had no *right* to represent in the first place. Which other community/country, pray thee, has "caste" as part of its social structure?
As for labels, if the shoe fits, wear it.
But with numerous stories of RIAA bungling up and filing lawsuits without evidence, general public is all too aware of their tactics. Hence now the natural tendency is to doubt.
Heck, even the people who quite possibly *did* pirate stuff, when sued, demanded to know which specific files RIAA was accusing them of pirating. RIAA's reply : "We don't know. Hand us his harddisk and we will see if there are any". Guilty till proved innocent. General public now knows how stupid RIAA is. So no, the natural assumption will be to doubt RIAA's claims of having any evidence, even if you *were* actually engaging in piracy. RIAA has bungled up *that* much.