Yes but I imagine over 10 percent of teens expose themselves to risk offline, so its fairly small fish in the big scheme of things. Or do we not worry about offline dangers anymore?
You DO realize we are talking about China here, the country that hasn't sold over 300 legit copies of Windows Vista yet, right? They sound like a country full of smart people. I know a ton of people who are avoiding Vista like the plague, while in China they've got less then 300 stupid fucks (or less then 300 computer users. I somehow doubt the latter).
There's also the perception that if they can get Office at a discount they're saving money. Recently Microsoft offered office (and some other programs like the latest Outlook Express) for Australian university students at $99 or $199 (I can't remember). My father recommended I get it so I had a look and couldn't find any new features in Office that I would use and I didn't use any of the other software that came bundled with it. Well my sister and her boyfriend thought I was crazy. After all, it was SO much cheaper then Office normally is. I asked them what features the latest Office had that they used, they couldn't name one. Her boyfriend mentioned the great spam filtering in Outlook, but that was it. My sister liked the look of it. I said well I didn't use Outlook and I'd need a bit better feature then its "new look" before I'd buy it, they thought I was crazy.
So if the people making this decision in China are like my sister and father, all they need do is offer them a discounted Office and they'll go with Microsoft's XML format, simply because there's the perception that they'll be getting a discount.
Yahoo (nor any other company, for that matter) doesn't have the option of replying, "Well, we'll give you the information if it's for a certain kind of crime, but not for the ones we don't agree with. Yes they do. They can either: 1) subsume the fines 2) Pull out of China and help support dissidents who try to subvert China's censorship programs in order to access Yahoo.
Or alternatively they can be good little Nazi^H^H^H^HChina sympathizers and help them track down the Jews^H^H^H^Hcriminals.
the philippines is a beautiful land, with beautiful people... and a corrupt political establishment, it's a sad commentary on corruption the philippines, the vote buying These are humans who are willing to be bought out, the people that their government is suppose to represent. I'd say they get what they deserve, and I feel sorry for anyone who didn't allow their vote to be bought.
So how do you make sure that they tell you of a hack they do find regardless of an invitation? What is to prevent them from failing to disclose said hack and sell it for a tidy sum to China?
On the other hand, kids who bully tend to spread it around and so a mountain of evidence against the bully can accumulate. Although yes, overzealous principles will be a problem with this. Then again, they're a problem with everything.
This law sounds terrible, I'd hate for it to pass.
I also want those sexual harassment laws repealed. If a woman doesn't want to be sexually harassed at work, she can go look for a job elsewhere or start her own business. Her right to not be sexually harassed infringes on my right to sexually harass people. Same deal with TFA's law.
In a free society people have the ability to choose who they do and do not associate with. However the law forces children to go to school. Therefore the law should protect them.
Its bizarre but while one right is infringed on, the other probably should be as well.
Then feel free to pay, and if enough people agree with you and like the book, they'll also pay. Those that don't agree, won't pay. This game is completely free, and despite that, it and many like it, will continue to exist. Now I don't have to pay for it, but I can if I wish to, and after a month I'll ask myself "did I feel I played it enough to pay $10?" If I answer yes, I'll give them $10, even though I don't have to. If enough people did it, they'd be able to quit their day jobs. Same thing with books. Let the market sort it out, not some draconian law.
Only if on screen keypads take exactly the same amount of time as more secure measures. On the other hand, if it only takes a fraction of the time to produce, that's 2 more weeks then they would have had otherwise. Besides, that assumes just because it can be broken means that it is. As long as its easier and profitable to use traditional keystroke loggers, hackers will use those.
Where is the downside? Regulation and control. If there was an.safe domain, it wouldn't be long for the Christian* Firewall Network (CFN?) to spring up trying to block it everywhere, and there would be demands to block it at ISPs, etc. It wouldn't be long before legislation was passed requiring all financial websites be "moved" to this domain. (Of course, we're just thinking of the adults.)
The mis-perception is that all financial websites would somehow magically be labeled.safe, and people would naively think like you did: it's easy to find and easy to block.
Meanwhile, the technological reality is that such blocking would do nothing to stop financial websites originating from domains outside of the U.S. It also would not stop dotted decimal addresses from working. But because there would be this new "law" requiring financial websites to be hosted in the.safe domain, the CFN idiots would be confused as to why their wives could still access financial websites even though it was supposed to be blocked, and would demand more regulations to stop this "illegal content".
Voluntary industry classifications have almost always turned into regulations (movie and video game ratings, light truck emissions, organic foods, etc.) It's just that on the internet, that idea doesn't work worth a damn, so why encourage it?
(*Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice.)
Hmmmm... that didn't work too well. Let's try another:
The horses have left, who cares about the barn door?
Having a.safe domain would make a simplistic filters only effective for simple people. I doubt a financial domain owner is going to drop honestbank.com and move everything over to honestbank.safe. He'll just use redirection and have two front doors to his domain.
ISP's and government authorities will NEVER be able to move financial websites off of.com. There's simply too may jurisdictions out there in our wonderful world.
All of the.safe media attention and effort seems pointless to me.
Hmmm. Still doesn't quite seem to fit. One more try:
The inverse (a domain exclusively for non-financial sites) always seemed much more practical and effective to me. Let's call it.notabank.
Let's put it this way, if you were starting a club, would you A) make the club undesirable for people to come to and then try to force them into it, or B) make the club a place where people wanted to be and then only allow in the people you wanted.
Well,.safe is that undesirable club that you have to force people in to. The financial institutes don't want to be in it because they know that it will get filtered out at a lot of places. So it cuts into their business.
But a.notabank domain, is the place where everyone who produces non-financial websites will want to be because they know that a lot of parents will filter out everything but.notabank. So you set up.notabank and put in place a gatekeeper who monitors to make sure that only the material you want is in it.
Of course, the companies pushing.safe want to run.safe and not.notabank because running.notabank will be a lot more work (with the content monitoring and all) so they won't make as much profit.
And the moral crusaders prefer.safe to.notabank because their ultimate goal isn't just to prevent people from seeing financial websites. Their goal is to prevent you from having any access to financial websites. And that will be easier if it is all in one place.
Now, that "gatekeeper who monitors" bit about.notabank will admittedly be challenging (I would suggest putting librarians in charg
Given that George W. Bush has single handedly raised the terror level by his constant "we're under attack" alarmist speeches, does that mean whitehouse.gov would have to move over to whitehouse.terror?
Well actually, that's somewhat defeatist. Here's 2 questions: Q1: What is the percentage rate of success for the current methods employed in keeping things "safe"? Q2: By what, if any, percentage rate will this method raise the percentage rate from Q1?
We simply use a rule to determine if we should use a.safe domain IF Q2 > 0 THEN create a.safe tld ELSE do something else.
We don't need something to be 100% trusted. Just as we don't need a renewable fuel alternative that will replace oil 100%. A renewable fuel alternative that helps replace more then 0% of oil usage will help in getting rid of our dependency on oil. Just as if a.safe domain tld helps decrease the chance of attacks, it will help keep people safe. Neither need to be 100% effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but I imagine over 10 percent of teens expose themselves to risk offline, so its fairly small fish in the big scheme of things. Or do we not worry about offline dangers anymore?
I'm an Australian student in China at the moment via a program at my university and all I see is UOF, UOF, UOF with windows 2000 or Windows XP.
There's also the perception that if they can get Office at a discount they're saving money. Recently Microsoft offered office (and some other programs like the latest Outlook Express) for Australian university students at $99 or $199 (I can't remember). My father recommended I get it so I had a look and couldn't find any new features in Office that I would use and I didn't use any of the other software that came bundled with it. Well my sister and her boyfriend thought I was crazy. After all, it was SO much cheaper then Office normally is. I asked them what features the latest Office had that they used, they couldn't name one. Her boyfriend mentioned the great spam filtering in Outlook, but that was it. My sister liked the look of it. I said well I didn't use Outlook and I'd need a bit better feature then its "new look" before I'd buy it, they thought I was crazy.
So if the people making this decision in China are like my sister and father, all they need do is offer them a discounted Office and they'll go with Microsoft's XML format, simply because there's the perception that they'll be getting a discount.
If you're code has any worth I'll give you money out of my own pocket (as I recently did for MUSHClient). You don't need the government to make me.
1) subsume the fines
2) Pull out of China and help support dissidents who try to subvert China's censorship programs in order to access Yahoo.
Or alternatively they can be good little Nazi^H^H^H^HChina sympathizers and help them track down the Jews^H^H^H^Hcriminals.
I don't think it was so much a school day, as a business day. Although the hours could have been better chosen, as could have the amount of notice.
The US State Department being compromised is a good thing? Wow. I guess you're the definition of a zealot.
How is this a troll?
So how do you make sure that they tell you of a hack they do find regardless of an invitation? What is to prevent them from failing to disclose said hack and sell it for a tidy sum to China?
And if they stop giving some of their taxes, perhaps the federal government can stop giving them protection with the army.
On the other hand, kids who bully tend to spread it around and so a mountain of evidence against the bully can accumulate. Although yes, overzealous principles will be a problem with this. Then again, they're a problem with everything.
This law sounds terrible, I'd hate for it to pass.
I also want those sexual harassment laws repealed. If a woman doesn't want to be sexually harassed at work, she can go look for a job elsewhere or start her own business. Her right to not be sexually harassed infringes on my right to sexually harass people. Same deal with TFA's law.
[/sarcasm]
In a free society people have the ability to choose who they do and do not associate with. However the law forces children to go to school. Therefore the law should protect them.
Its bizarre but while one right is infringed on, the other probably should be as well.
Are the power companies convicted monopolists? No? Then I guess you're just trolling.
Then feel free to pay, and if enough people agree with you and like the book, they'll also pay. Those that don't agree, won't pay. This game is completely free, and despite that, it and many like it, will continue to exist. Now I don't have to pay for it, but I can if I wish to, and after a month I'll ask myself "did I feel I played it enough to pay $10?" If I answer yes, I'll give them $10, even though I don't have to. If enough people did it, they'd be able to quit their day jobs. Same thing with books. Let the market sort it out, not some draconian law.
Only if on screen keypads take exactly the same amount of time as more secure measures. On the other hand, if it only takes a fraction of the time to produce, that's 2 more weeks then they would have had otherwise. Besides, that assumes just because it can be broken means that it is. As long as its easier and profitable to use traditional keystroke loggers, hackers will use those.
Where is the downside? Regulation and control. If there was an .safe domain, it wouldn't be long for the Christian* Firewall Network (CFN?) to spring up trying to block it everywhere, and there would be demands to block it at ISPs, etc. It wouldn't be long before legislation was passed requiring all financial websites be "moved" to this domain. (Of course, we're just thinking of the adults.)
.safe, and people would naively think like you did: it's easy to find and easy to block.
.safe domain, the CFN idiots would be confused as to why their wives could still access financial websites even though it was supposed to be blocked, and would demand more regulations to stop this "illegal content".
The mis-perception is that all financial websites would somehow magically be labeled
Meanwhile, the technological reality is that such blocking would do nothing to stop financial websites originating from domains outside of the U.S. It also would not stop dotted decimal addresses from working. But because there would be this new "law" requiring financial websites to be hosted in the
Voluntary industry classifications have almost always turned into regulations (movie and video game ratings, light truck emissions, organic foods, etc.) It's just that on the internet, that idea doesn't work worth a damn, so why encourage it?
(*Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice.)
Hmmmm... that didn't work too well. Let's try another:
The horses have left, who cares about the barn door?
.safe domain would make a simplistic filters only effective for simple people. I doubt a financial domain owner is going to drop honestbank.com and move everything over to honestbank.safe. He'll just use redirection and have two front doors to his domain.
.com. There's simply too may jurisdictions out there in our wonderful world.
.safe media attention and effort seems pointless to me.
Having a
ISP's and government authorities will NEVER be able to move financial websites off of
All of the
Hmmm. Still doesn't quite seem to fit. One more try:
The inverse (a domain exclusively for non-financial sites) always seemed much more practical and effective to me. Let's call it .notabank.
.safe is that undesirable club that you have to force people in to. The financial institutes don't want to be in it because they know that it will get filtered out at a lot of places. So it cuts into their business.
.notabank domain, is the place where everyone who produces non-financial websites will want to be because they know that a lot of parents will filter out everything but .notabank. So you set up .notabank and put in place a gatekeeper who monitors to make sure that only the material you want is in it.
.safe want to run .safe and not .notabank because running .notabank will be a lot more work (with the content monitoring and all) so they won't make as much profit.
.safe to .notabank because their ultimate goal isn't just to prevent people from seeing financial websites. Their goal is to prevent you from having any access to financial websites. And that will be easier if it is all in one place.
.notabank will admittedly be challenging (I would suggest putting librarians in charg
Let's put it this way, if you were starting a club, would you A) make the club undesirable for people to come to and then try to force them into it, or B) make the club a place where people wanted to be and then only allow in the people you wanted.
Well,
But a
Of course, the companies pushing
And the moral crusaders prefer
Now, that "gatekeeper who monitors" bit about
But I could have rerouted their telephone so when they call it goes to my number instead.
Given that George W. Bush has single handedly raised the terror level by his constant "we're under attack" alarmist speeches, does that mean whitehouse.gov would have to move over to whitehouse.terror?
Well actually, that's somewhat defeatist. Here's 2 questions:
.safe domain .safe tld ELSE do something else.
.safe domain tld helps decrease the chance of attacks, it will help keep people safe. Neither need to be 100% effective.
Q1: What is the percentage rate of success for the current methods employed in keeping things "safe"?
Q2: By what, if any, percentage rate will this method raise the percentage rate from Q1?
We simply use a rule to determine if we should use a
IF Q2 > 0 THEN create a
We don't need something to be 100% trusted. Just as we don't need a renewable fuel alternative that will replace oil 100%. A renewable fuel alternative that helps replace more then 0% of oil usage will help in getting rid of our dependency on oil. Just as if a