Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? Death penalty, obviously.
In a different thread of this discussion I think I did a good job of explaining why the death penalty is not really useful to our society and is, in fact, unjust in our current system.
I haven't seen the studies that show the death penalty having no effect on crime rates, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
There are actually quite a few studies, but showing wildly disparate results. Sadly most such studies are funded by political action committees and highly biased in one direction or another and papers regarding the methodological and statistical failures of these papers is common fair in criminology journals. If you want expert opinions the study, "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concludes, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” I believe 88% of criminologists surveyed answered that it was not a deterrent while only 5% answered that it was. This is in line with several similar surveys to criminology professors over the years.
As you mentioned, matching DNA can fabricated now in a lab.
While true, this is not really the major problem right now. Law enforcement is aware of DNA as a forensic tool, so if they want to make it appear as though a crime was committed by a particular individual they go to the effort to falsify the evidence, either by planting real DNA from the suspect taken from a different location or by getting rid of DNA evidence collected altogether. Often I imagine law enforcement working a case are convinced they know who is guilty so they justify falsifying evidence to get a conviction. t is only when law enforcement is unaware of the tools that can be applied to determine guilt and innocence, that they cannot account for those factors when falsifying evidence.
If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.
The death penalty is idiotic. First, it simply doesn't work as an effective deterrent to crime as numerous studies have shown. People are too stupidly optimistic so the death penalty results in increased rates of murder and violent crime because stupidly optimistic criminals suddenly believe they have nothing to lose by trying to shoot their way out of bad situations and kill anyone who could be a witness. Second, while from a "justice" standpoint and a "cost effective" standpoint it could be supported, that assumes out legal system is actually effective at convicting the right person and that is clearly not the case. When fingerprints came into general use by law enforcement, we were able to show many people had been wrongly convicted including a significant number of supposed murderers. When DNA testing became affordable, again, dozens of convicted murderers, some on death row, some already executed are proved innocent. Why then would any reasonable person assume that our criminal justice system in general is not regularly convicting a significant number of innocent people? You think it is okay then, to kill those people knowing that later on they may be proved innocent?
If the police and lawyers and forensic scientists in our criminal justice system were honest and obeyed the law and proper procedure in obtaining convictions, then maybe we could implement the death penalty in a just fashion, but the truth is, we regularly convict innocent people because the system is designed to reward convictions and not punish convictions of the innocent. Hell, groups like the Innocence Project are fighting the courts for the right to test the DNA of convicted persons. Why would anyone interested in justice oppose more accurate forensic investigation of serious crime? Now that DNA evidence is a known quantity, it is certainly fabricated or falsified just like fingerprints were and we will have to wait for the next disruptive forensic technology the police don't know about yet to exonerate those innocent people in prison more recently. With such a broken legal system, I find it dishonorable and unjust to advocate for the death penalty. Doing so is quite clearly advocating for the murder of innocent people convicted by corrupt or simply lazy law enforcement.
How about installing some 'regular' phones that inmates can use, but monitor all calls?
That sounds very expensive, as in you have to hire people to listen to the calls and other people to double check or at least spot check the first group. Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? So you can't give everyone access, but then you still have the worst of the cell phone problem having eliminated it only for those people who would normally not be a real problem.
I used a NextStep box, back in the day. I remember it had.pkg files like OS X does for some installers, but I don't recall if there were.app extensions, maybe.ap? I know they did refer to apps, I just can't recall if they had the same type of directory is an application bundle because I just used the launcher and it did not show extensions.
Now, Microsoft is pushing the boundaries of the 'widget' definition even further.
Several companies beat MS to the punch here, including Apple who copied earlier applications that hosted widgets and built them into the OS. For years you've been able to select parts of web pages and save them as widgets in OS X. And yes, they are called 'widgets'.
The mainstream considers "app" an abbreviation of "application," that's what matters.
And exe is an abbreviation of executable, most extensions are.
.app is hidden by default in Mac OS X so even the average mac user doesn't know about that extension.
I just checked a freshly installed box I happen to have handy and no, the.app extension is visible by default.
And Steve being a marketer didn't start calling them apps in press conferences because it was more geeky and obscure, I assure you.
He started calling them apps in press conferences in the early 2000's, a few years after everyone else using OS X started referring to applications as apps.
This is an example of a bunch of old grumpy programmers hating people who are not programmers telling them what's an "app" and what's not. That and they hate that Apple in a very "cutesy" way popularized apps by shortening the name and making it a little less geeky.
It is referring to programs by their extension, how is that less geeky? OS X applications are.app bundles. It is no less geeky than referring to an exe.
As the article points out, an 'app' is very different from an 'application'. I have never heard someone refer to an iPhone program as an 'application' and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software.
You should know that since 2001 all standard software on OS X has had a.app extension and EVERYONE has been calling them "apps" for two decades now, similar to how windows some users refer to exe's, except that the.app is actually visible by default for all users, so it is not limited to power users. Further, the.app moniker has been used to differentiate between general services "mail" or "iTunes" and the application in question "mail dot app" or the "iTunes app".
If someone calls something an 'app', no one will think they are talking about a desktop application.
I disagree.
So while you may have never heard of anyone calling a stand-alone desktop software as an app, it's been very common among users of Apple products for a very long time.
unless your 'consignment' store is a pawn shop in Florida... if your house is broken into and you subsequently find your items in a pawn shop you must buy them from the pawn shop if you want them back - and the pawn shop is not liable
This is untrue in the vast majority of the country. Pawn shops in most states have a legal responsibility to actively try to prevent stolen items from being sold and, their possession of your property, regardless of is they paid for them, does not transfer legal ownership to them, since they paid someone who did not own the goods. In almost every state pawn shops have to return stolen goods to the rightful owner and eat the loss. The police generally confiscate goods for the investigation then return them to the original owner. If the police do not do this, some pawn shops will try to claim payment from you. This is when you go to small claims court or (if valuable enough) file suit against the pawn shop. They will lose if you can show the goods are in fact probably the ones stolen from you (you don't even need beyond a reasonable doubt for a civil case like this, just probable).
I know SJ doesn't like flash[sic], but really, who goes on youtube[sic] and sits their[sic] complaining about flash[sic]? No one. Who even notices half the time when flash[sic] is used? again, no one.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with Steve Jobs? This is Google we're talking about.
I haven't noticed chrome[sic] become any less stable since flash[sic] was added in, and I haven't noticed any flash-based[sic] sites crashing the browser either.
That's the point. Google solved the Flash issue by adding Flash in natively, with code they control. Now they are pulling h.264 out and it is being replaced with a plug-in they don't control that has performance problems, essentially doing the opposite of what they did with Flash and getting predictable results.
If a consignment store sold stolen property, it would belegally responsible for its acts. I'm NOT saying they would be liable, but rather that they could be held liable and that the "I was only a consignment store" defense would fail.
Look up the terms: "innocent purchaser" and "bona fide purchaser". Sure such resellers have some responsibility for stolen goods, but not very much beyond returning the goods unless it can be demonstrated they knew the goods were stolen. Of course this is fairly irrelevant because we're not talking about theft, but copyright infringement. And that's a different set of laws entirely.
So on to the copyright issue, Apple is redistributing copyrighted material they were misled into thinking was licensed to them (was in fact licensed to them fraudulently). Apple has been notified (perhaps in the legal sense) so they have a limited time to stop the copyright infringement before they are subject to punitive fees as willful infringers. They are always subject to damages as a result of their actions, although they would of course immediately sue the person who licensed it to them and recover as much of that as that person has.
So, Apple touts their App Store as a place where you can get software without the problems regular vendors suffer, by means of their careful screening process.
Unless they are making specific claims about confirming copyright, they're legally in the clear.
I wonder how careful that screening process actually is if it fails to detect basic theft.
Not theft, copyright and trademark infringement. Please learn the difference if you're going to be discussing these topics intelligently.
How long then until someone smuggles the first demonstration virus it into the App Store in order to show just how well that screening process actually works?
Likely not a virus, but someone will undoubtedly slip a trojan past the Mac App reviewers at some point. I'm not sure yet if Apple is applying their security frameworks to apps from the Mac app store. If not, hopefully they will soon and will be able to contain malware that slips through via their MAC implementation and revoke the signature of malware, thus globally disabling it once it is discovered; like they do with iPhone apps.
No you can't. That binary would be copy-protected (and tied to your iPhone).
This is about Mac software, not iPhone software. It is tied to the Mac and the account, but that doesn't mean you can'y copy it, it just means doing so may not be very useful to you.
A quick search turns up Internetworks browser adding tabs in 1994, iBrowse in 1999, and then Opera in 2000. So they did not really "start" the use of tabbed browsing, they were just the first one to catch on in the mainstream, well if you call Opera mainstream which is debatable.
Microsoft's H.264 addon for Firefox has a bad memory leak... So this might be bad for Chrome.
Sounds like Flash; poor performance and buggy, reflects poorly on the browser despite not being the browser's fault. How did Google handle that problem again? Oh yeah, they rolled support for it into the browser itself with code they maintain. Gee if only they would do something similar for h.264.
You'd need to be way more specific about OS's. It's likely your router is buggy or one or more of your computers is advertising itself as a IPv6 to IPv4 gateway erroneously.
Why so much hassle? Just look up the IP ranges for China and filter for that. Presto malware traffic.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Chinese IP space is primarily valid traffic. Darknet traffic has no real legitimate traffic; just traffic targeting indiscriminate space and erroneous configurations of valid software.
It's a standalone network that is not physically connected in any way to the public networks we know of as the Internet. Learned that from a Gibson novel.
It's also used to refer to the allocated but unused IP space in the existing internet. It is a term used by security researchers who are looking for subsets of traffic directed randomly by malware and misconfiguration. It is a good place to find internet worm traffic if you're trying to do research on traffic levels or find new worms.
Nothing you can afford can handle a "Big DDOS attack". No need to pick nits about how it is managed or configured.
Which is why handling DDOS attacks should be left to those with the money and resources to handle it: Your upstream provider
Assuming the traffic is clogging the routes to your servers, yeah there's not a lot you can do about it if you have centralized servers instead of distributed server capabilities through Akamai or someone. Arbor makes products that can be used to mitigate attacks that don't saturate your bandwidth. They also make the products the upstream ISP uses to mitigate the attacks and prevent such saturation, if you buy a premium service from the ISP with DDoS protection. Last I saw they had a nice Web interface and notification system so the admin is notified of what is going on and can request particular kinds of mitigation from the ISP in a fairly automated fashion.
When DDOS attacks look like legitimate web hits, blackhole routing can only be used on networks that do not include web servers.
The company that was making comments quoted in the article makes security products that profile your normal network traffic and then use the routers to blackhole DDoS traffic while keeping normal traffic fairly untouched. They make a relational database of what IPs you normally talk to, when on what ports, with what types of TCP headers etc. They likewise profile incoming traffic and then can manually or automatically blackhole all the fairly identical looking requests that make up a DDoS attack. This can sometimes mean dropping legitimate traffic that looks too much like the attack, but it basically keeps vital services and most normal traffic working fine during the attack.
While the language of the legislation doesn't explicitly call for shutting down communications, it has that effect as the capability of using "emergency powers" to shut down the communications infrastructure certainly is possible with this system by simply shutting down these choke points that are already under government control.
Absolutely. The government already has the legal and technical means to shut down the US network partially or completely.
As soon as you make the declaration that "high value infrastructure" has that "high value", it becomes a political game to get your particular facility excluded or included in that definition for various reasons, including pragmatic if there is a high speed link that is subsidized or has some features which from a pure business standpoint seems to be useful.
I think you've lost me. Where does the bill talk about adding monitoring networks. From what I read this was purely about the authority to tell the private companies to isolate,not the ability of the feds to do it themselves.
It is also a slippery slope...
You know "slippery slope" is the name of a logical fallacy, right?
That is the natural tendency of any human organization to grow or die, even if that growth is harmful to society as a whole.
So where's the potential for growth to be a problem with this bill?
Have you EVER bothered to pay attention to politics? If the law says you can't do something, you just find a way to define it as something the law doesn't prohibit. Isolate == shut down.
The law doesn't say the president can't shut down the networks. It says he can.
More reading, less Political Worship, please.
Political worship? What the fuck does that even mean? This isn't about supporting any president. It's about pointing out that your conspiracy theories about abuse for this are bloody idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? Death penalty, obviously.
In a different thread of this discussion I think I did a good job of explaining why the death penalty is not really useful to our society and is, in fact, unjust in our current system.
I haven't seen the studies that show the death penalty having no effect on crime rates, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
There are actually quite a few studies, but showing wildly disparate results. Sadly most such studies are funded by political action committees and highly biased in one direction or another and papers regarding the methodological and statistical failures of these papers is common fair in criminology journals. If you want expert opinions the study, "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concludes, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” I believe 88% of criminologists surveyed answered that it was not a deterrent while only 5% answered that it was. This is in line with several similar surveys to criminology professors over the years.
As you mentioned, matching DNA can fabricated now in a lab.
While true, this is not really the major problem right now. Law enforcement is aware of DNA as a forensic tool, so if they want to make it appear as though a crime was committed by a particular individual they go to the effort to falsify the evidence, either by planting real DNA from the suspect taken from a different location or by getting rid of DNA evidence collected altogether. Often I imagine law enforcement working a case are convinced they know who is guilty so they justify falsifying evidence to get a conviction. t is only when law enforcement is unaware of the tools that can be applied to determine guilt and innocence, that they cannot account for those factors when falsifying evidence.
If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.
The death penalty is idiotic. First, it simply doesn't work as an effective deterrent to crime as numerous studies have shown. People are too stupidly optimistic so the death penalty results in increased rates of murder and violent crime because stupidly optimistic criminals suddenly believe they have nothing to lose by trying to shoot their way out of bad situations and kill anyone who could be a witness. Second, while from a "justice" standpoint and a "cost effective" standpoint it could be supported, that assumes out legal system is actually effective at convicting the right person and that is clearly not the case. When fingerprints came into general use by law enforcement, we were able to show many people had been wrongly convicted including a significant number of supposed murderers. When DNA testing became affordable, again, dozens of convicted murderers, some on death row, some already executed are proved innocent. Why then would any reasonable person assume that our criminal justice system in general is not regularly convicting a significant number of innocent people? You think it is okay then, to kill those people knowing that later on they may be proved innocent?
If the police and lawyers and forensic scientists in our criminal justice system were honest and obeyed the law and proper procedure in obtaining convictions, then maybe we could implement the death penalty in a just fashion, but the truth is, we regularly convict innocent people because the system is designed to reward convictions and not punish convictions of the innocent. Hell, groups like the Innocence Project are fighting the courts for the right to test the DNA of convicted persons. Why would anyone interested in justice oppose more accurate forensic investigation of serious crime? Now that DNA evidence is a known quantity, it is certainly fabricated or falsified just like fingerprints were and we will have to wait for the next disruptive forensic technology the police don't know about yet to exonerate those innocent people in prison more recently. With such a broken legal system, I find it dishonorable and unjust to advocate for the death penalty. Doing so is quite clearly advocating for the murder of innocent people convicted by corrupt or simply lazy law enforcement.
How about installing some 'regular' phones that inmates can use, but monitor all calls?
That sounds very expensive, as in you have to hire people to listen to the calls and other people to double check or at least spot check the first group. Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? So you can't give everyone access, but then you still have the worst of the cell phone problem having eliminated it only for those people who would normally not be a real problem.
Yep, it dates back to NeXTStep I think.
I used a NextStep box, back in the day. I remember it had .pkg files like OS X does for some installers, but I don't recall if there were .app extensions, maybe .ap? I know they did refer to apps, I just can't recall if they had the same type of directory is an application bundle because I just used the launcher and it did not show extensions.
Now, Microsoft is pushing the boundaries of the 'widget' definition even further.
Several companies beat MS to the punch here, including Apple who copied earlier applications that hosted widgets and built them into the OS. For years you've been able to select parts of web pages and save them as widgets in OS X. And yes, they are called 'widgets'.
Pwn2Own has been going on for years. Just Google the competition and the goal required to win a prize is very clearly explained.
The mainstream considers "app" an abbreviation of "application," that's what matters.
And exe is an abbreviation of executable, most extensions are.
.app is hidden by default in Mac OS X so even the average mac user doesn't know about that extension.
I just checked a freshly installed box I happen to have handy and no, the .app extension is visible by default.
And Steve being a marketer didn't start calling them apps in press conferences because it was more geeky and obscure, I assure you.
He started calling them apps in press conferences in the early 2000's, a few years after everyone else using OS X started referring to applications as apps.
This is an example of a bunch of old grumpy programmers hating people who are not programmers telling them what's an "app" and what's not. That and they hate that Apple in a very "cutesy" way popularized apps by shortening the name and making it a little less geeky.
It is referring to programs by their extension, how is that less geeky? OS X applications are .app bundles. It is no less geeky than referring to an exe.
I've been telling all of my non-geek friends that when Apple says application they really mean applet...
Because you want to misinform people and trick them? That's mean.
As the article points out, an 'app' is very different from an 'application'. I have never heard someone refer to an iPhone program as an 'application' and I have never heard someone use the term 'app' to refer to a stand-alone desktop software.
You should know that since 2001 all standard software on OS X has had a .app extension and EVERYONE has been calling them "apps" for two decades now, similar to how windows some users refer to exe's, except that the .app is actually visible by default for all users, so it is not limited to power users. Further, the .app moniker has been used to differentiate between general services "mail" or "iTunes" and the application in question "mail dot app" or the "iTunes app".
If someone calls something an 'app', no one will think they are talking about a desktop application.
I disagree.
So while you may have never heard of anyone calling a stand-alone desktop software as an app, it's been very common among users of Apple products for a very long time.
unless your 'consignment' store is a pawn shop in Florida... if your house is broken into and you subsequently find your items in a pawn shop you must buy them from the pawn shop if you want them back - and the pawn shop is not liable
This is untrue in the vast majority of the country. Pawn shops in most states have a legal responsibility to actively try to prevent stolen items from being sold and, their possession of your property, regardless of is they paid for them, does not transfer legal ownership to them, since they paid someone who did not own the goods. In almost every state pawn shops have to return stolen goods to the rightful owner and eat the loss. The police generally confiscate goods for the investigation then return them to the original owner. If the police do not do this, some pawn shops will try to claim payment from you. This is when you go to small claims court or (if valuable enough) file suit against the pawn shop. They will lose if you can show the goods are in fact probably the ones stolen from you (you don't even need beyond a reasonable doubt for a civil case like this, just probable).
I know SJ doesn't like flash[sic], but really, who goes on youtube[sic] and sits their[sic] complaining about flash[sic]? No one. Who even notices half the time when flash[sic] is used? again, no one.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with Steve Jobs? This is Google we're talking about.
I haven't noticed chrome[sic] become any less stable since flash[sic] was added in, and I haven't noticed any flash-based[sic] sites crashing the browser either.
That's the point. Google solved the Flash issue by adding Flash in natively, with code they control. Now they are pulling h.264 out and it is being replaced with a plug-in they don't control that has performance problems, essentially doing the opposite of what they did with Flash and getting predictable results.
If a consignment store sold stolen property, it would belegally responsible for its acts. I'm NOT saying they would be liable, but rather that they could be held liable and that the "I was only a consignment store" defense would fail.
Look up the terms: "innocent purchaser" and "bona fide purchaser". Sure such resellers have some responsibility for stolen goods, but not very much beyond returning the goods unless it can be demonstrated they knew the goods were stolen. Of course this is fairly irrelevant because we're not talking about theft, but copyright infringement. And that's a different set of laws entirely.
So on to the copyright issue, Apple is redistributing copyrighted material they were misled into thinking was licensed to them (was in fact licensed to them fraudulently). Apple has been notified (perhaps in the legal sense) so they have a limited time to stop the copyright infringement before they are subject to punitive fees as willful infringers. They are always subject to damages as a result of their actions, although they would of course immediately sue the person who licensed it to them and recover as much of that as that person has.
So, Apple touts their App Store as a place where you can get software without the problems regular vendors suffer, by means of their careful screening process.
Unless they are making specific claims about confirming copyright, they're legally in the clear.
I wonder how careful that screening process actually is if it fails to detect basic theft.
Not theft, copyright and trademark infringement. Please learn the difference if you're going to be discussing these topics intelligently.
How long then until someone smuggles the first demonstration virus it into the App Store in order to show just how well that screening process actually works?
Likely not a virus, but someone will undoubtedly slip a trojan past the Mac App reviewers at some point. I'm not sure yet if Apple is applying their security frameworks to apps from the Mac app store. If not, hopefully they will soon and will be able to contain malware that slips through via their MAC implementation and revoke the signature of malware, thus globally disabling it once it is discovered; like they do with iPhone apps.
No you can't. That binary would be copy-protected (and tied to your iPhone).
This is about Mac software, not iPhone software. It is tied to the Mac and the account, but that doesn't mean you can'y copy it, it just means doing so may not be very useful to you.
A quick search turns up Internetworks browser adding tabs in 1994, iBrowse in 1999, and then Opera in 2000. So they did not really "start" the use of tabbed browsing, they were just the first one to catch on in the mainstream, well if you call Opera mainstream which is debatable.
Microsoft's H.264 addon for Firefox has a bad memory leak... So this might be bad for Chrome.
Sounds like Flash; poor performance and buggy, reflects poorly on the browser despite not being the browser's fault. How did Google handle that problem again? Oh yeah, they rolled support for it into the browser itself with code they maintain. Gee if only they would do something similar for h.264.
You'd need to be way more specific about OS's. It's likely your router is buggy or one or more of your computers is advertising itself as a IPv6 to IPv4 gateway erroneously.
Why so much hassle? Just look up the IP ranges for China and filter for that. Presto malware traffic.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Chinese IP space is primarily valid traffic. Darknet traffic has no real legitimate traffic; just traffic targeting indiscriminate space and erroneous configurations of valid software.
It's a standalone network that is not physically connected in any way to the public networks we know of as the Internet. Learned that from a Gibson novel.
It's also used to refer to the allocated but unused IP space in the existing internet. It is a term used by security researchers who are looking for subsets of traffic directed randomly by malware and misconfiguration. It is a good place to find internet worm traffic if you're trying to do research on traffic levels or find new worms.
Nothing you can afford can handle a "Big DDOS attack". No need to pick nits about how it is managed or configured.
Which is why handling DDOS attacks should be left to those with the money and resources to handle it: Your upstream provider
Assuming the traffic is clogging the routes to your servers, yeah there's not a lot you can do about it if you have centralized servers instead of distributed server capabilities through Akamai or someone. Arbor makes products that can be used to mitigate attacks that don't saturate your bandwidth. They also make the products the upstream ISP uses to mitigate the attacks and prevent such saturation, if you buy a premium service from the ISP with DDoS protection. Last I saw they had a nice Web interface and notification system so the admin is notified of what is going on and can request particular kinds of mitigation from the ISP in a fairly automated fashion.
When DDOS attacks look like legitimate web hits, blackhole routing can only be used on networks that do not include web servers.
The company that was making comments quoted in the article makes security products that profile your normal network traffic and then use the routers to blackhole DDoS traffic while keeping normal traffic fairly untouched. They make a relational database of what IPs you normally talk to, when on what ports, with what types of TCP headers etc. They likewise profile incoming traffic and then can manually or automatically blackhole all the fairly identical looking requests that make up a DDoS attack. This can sometimes mean dropping legitimate traffic that looks too much like the attack, but it basically keeps vital services and most normal traffic working fine during the attack.
While the language of the legislation doesn't explicitly call for shutting down communications, it has that effect as the capability of using "emergency powers" to shut down the communications infrastructure certainly is possible with this system by simply shutting down these choke points that are already under government control.
Absolutely. The government already has the legal and technical means to shut down the US network partially or completely.
As soon as you make the declaration that "high value infrastructure" has that "high value", it becomes a political game to get your particular facility excluded or included in that definition for various reasons, including pragmatic if there is a high speed link that is subsidized or has some features which from a pure business standpoint seems to be useful.
I think you've lost me. Where does the bill talk about adding monitoring networks. From what I read this was purely about the authority to tell the private companies to isolate,not the ability of the feds to do it themselves.
It is also a slippery slope...
You know "slippery slope" is the name of a logical fallacy, right?
That is the natural tendency of any human organization to grow or die, even if that growth is harmful to society as a whole.
So where's the potential for growth to be a problem with this bill?
Have you EVER bothered to pay attention to politics? If the law says you can't do something, you just find a way to define it as something the law doesn't prohibit. Isolate == shut down.
The law doesn't say the president can't shut down the networks. It says he can.
More reading, less Political Worship, please.
Political worship? What the fuck does that even mean? This isn't about supporting any president. It's about pointing out that your conspiracy theories about abuse for this are bloody idiotic.