If I had accepted $10 million from someone to steer development of a base company product, I probably wouldn't still be working there years later either.
The deterrent clearly works, that's why America is the world's biggest jailer, right?
25% of all prison inmates in the world are in US prisons, drawn from 7% of the global population. Perhaps people in America are bigger crooks than anywhere else, because any other explanation involves poor priorities in government.
In network security, the government has taken the approach Sony did before their huge hack, hiring attorneys rather than network administrators to secure their servers. They understand increasing criminal penalties as a deterrent, actually securing systems and networks is more involved so they don't spend their time and money there. That doesn't bode well for the NSA "archive of everything" database being secure.
Many European companies were already avoiding US cloud servers. There have been many magazine and journal articles to that effect, the primary concern cited was the access US officials had to any content on a US server. The way server farms distribute storage, it's difficult to know what country every bit of your data is physically in, and thereby what sort of legal protections it has. The only way to be sure to comply with European privacy laws is to only deal with servers with all facilities in Europe.
International law has a long way to go to catch up with this, and even when it does, the US government has proven that it does not comply with it's own regulations and laws. The FISA court is a joke, even in the NSA's own audits.
I wonder why the states wanted to bypass habeus corpus then. Their 93-7 approval of the NDAA, then a similar vote to renew it with the same powers left little question that they view due process and Constitutional protections as unnecessary luxuries. Renewal comes up again in the next month or two, and they seem just as anti-Constitution as ever.
Each time Gates has gone to Congress to argue for more H1B visas because of a lack of trained Americans, his foundation follows it up with more money for colleges in India.
They were in the midst of a "Windows Everywhere" marketing campaign. He did say that, until Netscape posted it's profit numbers.
Then when his buyout offer was spurned, he spent a lot of money catching up.
Netscape's browser was like $50 per seat. IE of course gutted that revenue stream in it's efforts to gain market share and after that Netscape started posting losses. Then AOL bought Netscape and browser progression largely stalled for a while.
The TOR issues are mostly Javascript, the package is decent enough, but running NoScript continually can be inconvenient, so of course people turn it off and open themselves up to malware. You think uProxy would be immune to this?
The only alternative for him was to insist on this going to trial, facing the 30-45 years the prosecution wanted, and hoping sense would win the day.
I'm not sure that is a realistic option in today's courtrooms.
People were already paying in 1994 and earlier, when most of the information was on university and government servers. They're run by different entities now, not funded by government grants and public funding.
I do remember those days, and mailbombing blatantly commercial marketers when they popped up, as if that would stop them. There were a lot of people against the commercialization of the Internet then, in spite of it's inevitability when the network transitioned. All these years later, I find that I prefer the market system to a system where the government and it's agencies fund the sources.
Many sites that once had 2-3 ads on a page apparently decided that they needed a dozen or more to try and get around adblockers, just like the drug spammers who try anything to get through, as if you must buy it if they defeat your filter. I still whitelist sites I use regularly, but didn't think of it until one posted a simple request and explanation, and when whitelisted, it had pretty unobtrusive ads. Others, I whitelist them, get inundated with garbage, and remove them right away.
The ball is in their court.
Filling out all those federal complaint forms actually accomplished something? I just did it out of frustration and because I knew spam texts hadn't been legalized yet.
Marketers have to buy their legislation like everyone else.
Winning a customer at a loss never works out, look at how badly Amazon is doing after many years of losses.
It's all in the business planning, and nobody is forced to sign up with Groupon for marketing, any more than they're forced to advertise in grocery store circulars. Simply reading the requirements should tell the business if they can make their system work for them.
Flight schools were losing money on flights since the cost didn't even cover fuel, but they apparently got enough students to cover it since they still run them occasionally.
Utilities were given specifications to follow, but they've changed several times. From an isolated control and monitoring network to one connected to the internet for government access, the regulators can't decide if they want security or convenience. Being bureaucrats first and foremost, ease of use (monitoring) for the government will be the side it will always drift towards.
It's been a few years, but the last I checked, the ones issuing these federal laws, piled on top of thousands of others that nobody can even count, were not in the judicial branch. These justices can only issue rulings on law brought to them, they can't create laws. The federal prosecutors are handed a stick through laws, and if they choose to intimidate with the stick, that's one thing, but the stick can be withered or removed entirely by the legislators.
I'm not sure Anonymous could come up with a large enough check to get Congress to do their jobs though.
The trademark office created the joke by giving him the trademark.
There've been at least two movies by that name, one http://archive.org/details/CarnivalOfSouls1962 and the other a Wes Craven movie in 1998.
Maybe I should try to register Psycho or something.
They've trained me well enough. I may not even buy the base game if I know there will be extensive DLC until it's a year old and the "Platinum" or "Complete" versions roll out for $20-30. I'm not sure how that helps them, but even DA:O had a Gold and Platinum version. I bought the gold too early, then bought the platinum later, and combined it was still less than the launch price.
They might come back.. maybe not pagers, but something a little less capable.
I'm always amused when going into "secure" areas with signs posted saying no cameras allowed, but people in the area are using a variety of smartphones.
A few incidents and phones without cameras might show up in some large corporations again. I'm not sure anybody even makes them anymore, someone must.
The CIA runs on it's own. In Iraq they have their own camps, their own security ground forces, and their own aerial drones with attack capabilities. They strike targets that could be hit by the military, but spooks prefer not to tell anyone what they've found, know, or suspect.
Who needs the military? They're rarely on the same page anyway.
Obama stated today that he would be pushing for stronger enforcement of current copyrights.
In other words, no copyright reforms are coming anytime soon.
We don't need to concern ourselves with those dead white guys and their warnings about corporate influences usurping the rule of the people and all of that other foolishness from ages past. History never repeats itself.
Later, they got a show feed they taped to be played later.
Network television still does that, which is why wild feeds were something to look for when you were bored and had a C-Band dish around.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had accepted $10 million from someone to steer development of a base company product, I probably wouldn't still be working there years later either.
The deterrent clearly works, that's why America is the world's biggest jailer, right?
25% of all prison inmates in the world are in US prisons, drawn from 7% of the global population. Perhaps people in America are bigger crooks than anywhere else, because any other explanation involves poor priorities in government.
In network security, the government has taken the approach Sony did before their huge hack, hiring attorneys rather than network administrators to secure their servers. They understand increasing criminal penalties as a deterrent, actually securing systems and networks is more involved so they don't spend their time and money there. That doesn't bode well for the NSA "archive of everything" database being secure.
Many European companies were already avoiding US cloud servers. There have been many magazine and journal articles to that effect, the primary concern cited was the access US officials had to any content on a US server. The way server farms distribute storage, it's difficult to know what country every bit of your data is physically in, and thereby what sort of legal protections it has. The only way to be sure to comply with European privacy laws is to only deal with servers with all facilities in Europe.
International law has a long way to go to catch up with this, and even when it does, the US government has proven that it does not comply with it's own regulations and laws. The FISA court is a joke, even in the NSA's own audits.
That fear is the same one used by a myriad of politicians over centuries to justify authoritarian crackdowns. Even Rome had it's terrorists.
I wonder why the states wanted to bypass habeus corpus then. Their 93-7 approval of the NDAA, then a similar vote to renew it with the same powers left little question that they view due process and Constitutional protections as unnecessary luxuries. Renewal comes up again in the next month or two, and they seem just as anti-Constitution as ever.
Each time Gates has gone to Congress to argue for more H1B visas because of a lack of trained Americans, his foundation follows it up with more money for colleges in India.
They were in the midst of a "Windows Everywhere" marketing campaign. He did say that, until Netscape posted it's profit numbers. Then when his buyout offer was spurned, he spent a lot of money catching up.
Netscape's browser was like $50 per seat. IE of course gutted that revenue stream in it's efforts to gain market share and after that Netscape started posting losses. Then AOL bought Netscape and browser progression largely stalled for a while.
The TOR issues are mostly Javascript, the package is decent enough, but running NoScript continually can be inconvenient, so of course people turn it off and open themselves up to malware. You think uProxy would be immune to this?
"If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place."
The only alternative for him was to insist on this going to trial, facing the 30-45 years the prosecution wanted, and hoping sense would win the day.
I'm not sure that is a realistic option in today's courtrooms.
Someone broke the lock on a broom closet at work to get a mop.
Nobody even called the police, it was terrifying as I'm sure you understand.
People were already paying in 1994 and earlier, when most of the information was on university and government servers. They're run by different entities now, not funded by government grants and public funding.
I do remember those days, and mailbombing blatantly commercial marketers when they popped up, as if that would stop them. There were a lot of people against the commercialization of the Internet then, in spite of it's inevitability when the network transitioned.
All these years later, I find that I prefer the market system to a system where the government and it's agencies fund the sources.
Many sites that once had 2-3 ads on a page apparently decided that they needed a dozen or more to try and get around adblockers, just like the drug spammers who try anything to get through, as if you must buy it if they defeat your filter. I still whitelist sites I use regularly, but didn't think of it until one posted a simple request and explanation, and when whitelisted, it had pretty unobtrusive ads. Others, I whitelist them, get inundated with garbage, and remove them right away.
The ball is in their court.
Filling out all those federal complaint forms actually accomplished something? I just did it out of frustration and because I knew spam texts hadn't been legalized yet.
Marketers have to buy their legislation like everyone else.
Winning a customer at a loss never works out, look at how badly Amazon is doing after many years of losses.
It's all in the business planning, and nobody is forced to sign up with Groupon for marketing, any more than they're forced to advertise in grocery store circulars. Simply reading the requirements should tell the business if they can make their system work for them.
Flight schools were losing money on flights since the cost didn't even cover fuel, but they apparently got enough students to cover it since they still run them occasionally.
Utilities were given specifications to follow, but they've changed several times. From an isolated control and monitoring network to one connected to the internet for government access, the regulators can't decide if they want security or convenience. Being bureaucrats first and foremost, ease of use (monitoring) for the government will be the side it will always drift towards.
The BBC has a Pentagon announcement that they plan to quintuple their "Cyber Defense" staffing. Completely unrelated I'm sure.
It's been a few years, but the last I checked, the ones issuing these federal laws, piled on top of thousands of others that nobody can even count, were not in the judicial branch. These justices can only issue rulings on law brought to them, they can't create laws. The federal prosecutors are handed a stick through laws, and if they choose to intimidate with the stick, that's one thing, but the stick can be withered or removed entirely by the legislators. I'm not sure Anonymous could come up with a large enough check to get Congress to do their jobs though.
The trademark office created the joke by giving him the trademark. There've been at least two movies by that name, one http://archive.org/details/CarnivalOfSouls1962 and the other a Wes Craven movie in 1998.
Maybe I should try to register Psycho or something.
They've trained me well enough. I may not even buy the base game if I know there will be extensive DLC until it's a year old and the "Platinum" or "Complete" versions roll out for $20-30. I'm not sure how that helps them, but even DA:O had a Gold and Platinum version. I bought the gold too early, then bought the platinum later, and combined it was still less than the launch price.
They might come back.. maybe not pagers, but something a little less capable. I'm always amused when going into "secure" areas with signs posted saying no cameras allowed, but people in the area are using a variety of smartphones. A few incidents and phones without cameras might show up in some large corporations again. I'm not sure anybody even makes them anymore, someone must.
The CIA runs on it's own. In Iraq they have their own camps, their own security ground forces, and their own aerial drones with attack capabilities. They strike targets that could be hit by the military, but spooks prefer not to tell anyone what they've found, know, or suspect.
Who needs the military? They're rarely on the same page anyway.
Obama stated today that he would be pushing for stronger enforcement of current copyrights.
In other words, no copyright reforms are coming anytime soon.
We don't need to concern ourselves with those dead white guys and their warnings about corporate influences usurping the rule of the people and all of that other foolishness from ages past. History never repeats itself.
Later, they got a show feed they taped to be played later.
Network television still does that, which is why wild feeds were something to look for when you were bored and had a C-Band dish around.