$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of). I have no interest in her as a politician, and I suspect she's no longer interested in holding office, either. She wants to be a talk brand, and trademarking her name isn't any different than Martha Stewart doing the same.
Does it lay out penalties for misuse of such powers?
It's the same as mis-using the long-standing executive powers to stockpile bauxite in the strategic reserve, or mis-using powers to take over city bus fleets in an emergency, or mis-using powers to do anything else. It's called not getting re-elected, usually. And if it's criminal (we have tens of thousands of laws already spelling that out), then it's called getting impeached.
You're misunderstanding what the "kill switch" legislation is. It's not technical. It's a legal mechanism by which the administration can tell services (including operations like Twitter or Google, or just Google's Gmail service, or an entire ISP, or just one blog site), software vendors, or individual engineers that they must take a specific action as required during an emergency. It's no different that the government's already existing ability to commandeer ham radio equipment, or cruise ships, or food distribution companies. If they think that a dozen people are waiting for instructions via Twitter to time their dropping off of backpack bombs on subway trains all around the country, then the "kill switch" is invoked: federal power to tell Twitter to shut down or otherwise do what they say has to be done. The legislation lays out penalties for failure to comply with such orders.
This doesn't give the president a button to push. It gives him lawyers to push, in real time, on short notice.
it's becoming increasingly hard to function effectively without a Facebook account
Your job requires you to have such an account? You've got some family member that you must be in contact with, but who doesn't have e-mail and can't take a phone call? You have pictures to store, and can't think of a single other place to put them? You feel the need to publish your status to the world, and can't find a single other way to do it besides using one particular company's free service? Which "function" are you having a hard time performing if you don't sign into Facebook on a given day? Or are you simply unable or unwilling to explain to your friends what it is you'd rather not expose through that venue?
That is clearly not equitable, and it is the government's job to fix it.
What if I don't feel like working, and thus have no money compared to anybody else, even lower income people. Is that equitable? Should government fix that by taking money away from someone else and giving it to me?
If gas were suddenly $50 a gallon, you know very well that the government would HAVE to subsidies it
How would they do that? Everyone (directly or indirectly) uses fuel. So they're going to take money from everybody, and then use it to lower the price of fuel that everybody uses? Do you not understand that that's a closed system, and that you're introducing a layer of government (and cost/friction) into the system, but not actually making anything cost less? Or are you suggesting that the money should be borrowed from China? Be specific.
If Cheetos are $1 per ton, but Apples are $5 million per ounce, the government should probably subsidize (or even regulate) the sale of apples, because more people eating apples is better for society than people eating cheetos.
Will the government also make everyone eat those apples? If so, why take money from everyone, launder it through a government bureaucracy, and then make everyone buy them, but for a lower price because their own money is being used to "lower" the cost, after a bunch of government employees have been paid to touch the money along the way? Why not simply let people pay what it actually costs to make the apples? Or are you saying that the government will take money from everyone, and use that to give some people cheaper apples? Will people who don't want to eat apples still have to help buy them for the people who do?
You obviously weren't watching the State Of The Union address, in which Obama clearly and plainly stated that the government is the engine of the economy. He's done us the kind favor of finally just coming right out and saying it, in public. Obviously, he has a lot of supporters that want it to be that way. But many people, if they stop to really think about what that means, will understand what an idealogical train wreck he represents.
Citation? If you bother looking into it, you'll see that SUV and light truck sales are way off from years past.
There's got to be a way to make it not affect those in need while giving a disincentive to those who want to drive tanks.
Yes, it's called "tax loopholes," and it requires a huge new IRS bureaucracy, puts a giant paperwork burden on the very people (usually, small businesses like landscapers, dog groomers, carpenters) that you want to "protect," and of course - by way of supporting that giant new layer of administrative recordkeeping, fraud prevention, etc., means more people working for the government who don't actually produce anything, but for whom taxpayers get to pay, right on through their retirement. Yes, please, I want more of that.
To go further, we held the same concept about a race of people
At you used the past tense when referring to the 19th century. And here we are in the 21st century, with a virulent and thuggish religion egging on people who burn school teachers alive for daring to teach a girl to read, or stoning a woman to death for having been raped. And this isn't out of ignorance, it's as deliberate as can be. Well-educated, worldly, big-money people are behind movements like the Taliban. They're just basically evil.
Sorry, it had been a while since your ealier post about secession, so I'd forgotten about your "us vs. them" take on your fellow citizens.
Like I said: start by being persuasive. So far, by putting "laws" in quotes and calling police the worst danger on the road, you've only convinced me that I shouldn't consider your opinions at all, let alone seriously. Your whole rebel-without-a-clue posture on all taxes because of some spending blah blah blah is all the final info I need on that front.
What country do you live in? US laws in this regard apply to US citizens and the companies in which they participate. If you live in a different country, it's certainly your right to try to talk your government into not caring about any relations with the US, so that you can support the Mullahs in Iran. If you have good enough reasons to support them, I'm sure you can be persuasive, and get enough people in your country to vote in a way that prevents anyone in your government from having a reason to strike international trade agreements with the US. So, start persuading, and have fun with the Mullahs (who would, if you lived there, have you arrested for the sort of conversation you're having right now... you do understand that, right?).
No, he behaves like an activist with an agenda. The world is full of leakable corruption, but he very carefully chooses the dead horses he likes to flog and the specific axes he likes to grind.
No, I'm not going to regurgitate months worth of reading on the subject, much of which has been the subject of articles linked-to right here on slashdot. Of course, you know that, and you're just holding your hands over your ears and going "la la la!"... or hoping that people who haven't been paying attention will see your post as somehow constructive.
But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.
Don't listen to what he says (or how he says it). Watch what he does (and doesn't do). Note the number of former associates/co-workers who've shared his stated purpose but found themselves highly annoyed by his condescending behavior towards them. Note his comments about how the papers he's giving the stolen documents to have to release them according to his plans, because "he owns them." He's all about him.
Party beliefs are that property is that of the people, really you should only have to buy one copy for all of China
If that's really how they see things, then they wouldn't think it was necessary to buy any copies. Not even one. The State automatically owns and controls everything.
He's also claimed the exact opposite, and the actual chat logs with Manning have remained conveniently unreleased.
Because they are now part of an intense investigation into what happened. You can bet that his defense lawyers are part of why that information has been kept close. It will all come out in the end, at his trial.
The breach was done as soon as he burned the discs
But it didn't mean anything until he acted to move the data along to where he really wanted it to go - someplace that would generate the 15 minutes of fame he was looking for. He didn't just upload it to WL, he talked with them about being the people who received it, and they made arrangements to receive it, knowing in advance what it was that was going to be coming out of his world/job and into theirs. There are some very fine lines to be drawn there, legally, which is why it's taking some real time to get it squared away in prosecutorial terms.
It's not about the domain names, per se. It's about the "businesses" that use them as fundamental parts of running a criminal enterprise. You do understand that part, right?
Slashdot Mirror
did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of). I have no interest in her as a politician, and I suspect she's no longer interested in holding office, either. She wants to be a talk brand, and trademarking her name isn't any different than Martha Stewart doing the same.
Yes, I'm sure that just a sublime joke, not a typical case of Not Having A Clue.
Its what ever the copy write holders say it is.
People who can't be bothered to understand that the term is "copyright" should avoid expressing an opinion on the matter.
Does it lay out penalties for misuse of such powers?
It's the same as mis-using the long-standing executive powers to stockpile bauxite in the strategic reserve, or mis-using powers to take over city bus fleets in an emergency, or mis-using powers to do anything else. It's called not getting re-elected, usually. And if it's criminal (we have tens of thousands of laws already spelling that out), then it's called getting impeached.
I can't see how this would help in the US
You're misunderstanding what the "kill switch" legislation is. It's not technical. It's a legal mechanism by which the administration can tell services (including operations like Twitter or Google, or just Google's Gmail service, or an entire ISP, or just one blog site), software vendors, or individual engineers that they must take a specific action as required during an emergency. It's no different that the government's already existing ability to commandeer ham radio equipment, or cruise ships, or food distribution companies. If they think that a dozen people are waiting for instructions via Twitter to time their dropping off of backpack bombs on subway trains all around the country, then the "kill switch" is invoked: federal power to tell Twitter to shut down or otherwise do what they say has to be done. The legislation lays out penalties for failure to comply with such orders.
This doesn't give the president a button to push. It gives him lawyers to push, in real time, on short notice.
Unless your in an MBA program
Or a remedial English program.
it's becoming increasingly hard to function effectively without a Facebook account
Your job requires you to have such an account? You've got some family member that you must be in contact with, but who doesn't have e-mail and can't take a phone call? You have pictures to store, and can't think of a single other place to put them? You feel the need to publish your status to the world, and can't find a single other way to do it besides using one particular company's free service? Which "function" are you having a hard time performing if you don't sign into Facebook on a given day? Or are you simply unable or unwilling to explain to your friends what it is you'd rather not expose through that venue?
That is clearly not equitable, and it is the government's job to fix it.
What if I don't feel like working, and thus have no money compared to anybody else, even lower income people. Is that equitable? Should government fix that by taking money away from someone else and giving it to me?
If gas were suddenly $50 a gallon, you know very well that the government would HAVE to subsidies it
How would they do that? Everyone (directly or indirectly) uses fuel. So they're going to take money from everybody, and then use it to lower the price of fuel that everybody uses? Do you not understand that that's a closed system, and that you're introducing a layer of government (and cost/friction) into the system, but not actually making anything cost less? Or are you suggesting that the money should be borrowed from China? Be specific.
If Cheetos are $1 per ton, but Apples are $5 million per ounce, the government should probably subsidize (or even regulate) the sale of apples, because more people eating apples is better for society than people eating cheetos.
Will the government also make everyone eat those apples? If so, why take money from everyone, launder it through a government bureaucracy, and then make everyone buy them, but for a lower price because their own money is being used to "lower" the cost, after a bunch of government employees have been paid to touch the money along the way? Why not simply let people pay what it actually costs to make the apples? Or are you saying that the government will take money from everyone, and use that to give some people cheaper apples? Will people who don't want to eat apples still have to help buy them for the people who do?
Companies need to make a compelling (yet affordable) electric car for me ... the government needs to provide subsidies/incentives of some sort
So what you mean is that you want me and a bunch of other people to work part of every business day to help you buy one at a discount.
You obviously weren't watching the State Of The Union address, in which Obama clearly and plainly stated that the government is the engine of the economy. He's done us the kind favor of finally just coming right out and saying it, in public. Obviously, he has a lot of supporters that want it to be that way. But many people, if they stop to really think about what that means, will understand what an idealogical train wreck he represents.
It's trending larger and larger every year
Citation? If you bother looking into it, you'll see that SUV and light truck sales are way off from years past.
There's got to be a way to make it not affect those in need while giving a disincentive to those who want to drive tanks.
Yes, it's called "tax loopholes," and it requires a huge new IRS bureaucracy, puts a giant paperwork burden on the very people (usually, small businesses like landscapers, dog groomers, carpenters) that you want to "protect," and of course - by way of supporting that giant new layer of administrative recordkeeping, fraud prevention, etc., means more people working for the government who don't actually produce anything, but for whom taxpayers get to pay, right on through their retirement. Yes, please, I want more of that.
To go further, we held the same concept about a race of people
At you used the past tense when referring to the 19th century. And here we are in the 21st century, with a virulent and thuggish religion egging on people who burn school teachers alive for daring to teach a girl to read, or stoning a woman to death for having been raped. And this isn't out of ignorance, it's as deliberate as can be. Well-educated, worldly, big-money people are behind movements like the Taliban. They're just basically evil.
Sorry, it had been a while since your ealier post about secession, so I'd forgotten about your "us vs. them" take on your fellow citizens.
Like I said: start by being persuasive. So far, by putting "laws" in quotes and calling police the worst danger on the road, you've only convinced me that I shouldn't consider your opinions at all, let alone seriously. Your whole rebel-without-a-clue posture on all taxes because of some spending blah blah blah is all the final info I need on that front.
This sounds like an ad for (and makes about as much sense as) the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org].
No, this sounds like a stealthy ad for Neil Stepheson's latest project .
What country do you live in? US laws in this regard apply to US citizens and the companies in which they participate. If you live in a different country, it's certainly your right to try to talk your government into not caring about any relations with the US, so that you can support the Mullahs in Iran. If you have good enough reasons to support them, I'm sure you can be persuasive, and get enough people in your country to vote in a way that prevents anyone in your government from having a reason to strike international trade agreements with the US. So, start persuading, and have fun with the Mullahs (who would, if you lived there, have you arrested for the sort of conversation you're having right now ... you do understand that, right?).
He behaves like a journal
No, he behaves like an activist with an agenda. The world is full of leakable corruption, but he very carefully chooses the dead horses he likes to flog and the specific axes he likes to grind.
No, I'm not going to regurgitate months worth of reading on the subject, much of which has been the subject of articles linked-to right here on slashdot. Of course, you know that, and you're just holding your hands over your ears and going "la la la!" ... or hoping that people who haven't been paying attention will see your post as somehow constructive.
But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.
Don't listen to what he says (or how he says it). Watch what he does (and doesn't do). Note the number of former associates/co-workers who've shared his stated purpose but found themselves highly annoyed by his condescending behavior towards them. Note his comments about how the papers he's giving the stolen documents to have to release them according to his plans, because "he owns them." He's all about him.
Party beliefs are that property is that of the people, really you should only have to buy one copy for all of China
If that's really how they see things, then they wouldn't think it was necessary to buy any copies. Not even one. The State automatically owns and controls everything.
He's also claimed the exact opposite, and the actual chat logs with Manning have remained conveniently unreleased.
Because they are now part of an intense investigation into what happened. You can bet that his defense lawyers are part of why that information has been kept close. It will all come out in the end, at his trial.
The breach was done as soon as he burned the discs
But it didn't mean anything until he acted to move the data along to where he really wanted it to go - someplace that would generate the 15 minutes of fame he was looking for. He didn't just upload it to WL, he talked with them about being the people who received it, and they made arrangements to receive it, knowing in advance what it was that was going to be coming out of his world/job and into theirs. There are some very fine lines to be drawn there, legally, which is why it's taking some real time to get it squared away in prosecutorial terms.
they were involved after the fact
... he couldn't complete the theft without help.
That's the part that is NOT clear, still. Manning didn't have anyplace to put the stuff
It's not about the domain names, per se. It's about the "businesses" that use them as fundamental parts of running a criminal enterprise. You do understand that part, right?