Or it could always be some error in the experiment. While not particularly cogent, I do recall one time in biology doing a bacterial culture and ending up with precisely zero colonies of bacteria the next day. It's possible to happen, but it's kind of tough to keep it that sterile by accident.
It could also just be a random chance. A 1/20 chance isn't really that far fetched, I'd be somewhat more concerned if they had it down to a 1/1 000 000 chance that something was up.
The financial industry isn't regulated to substantive degree. Which is what led to the great recession. Between the fraud, theft and dealing with securities which exceed the GDP of every nation the effect was shockingly similar to if there were no regulations in place at all.
Likewise, energy companies haven't gotten the message that they're being regulated. The recent BP debacle is hardly the only major accident in recent years due to a lack of care. There was the on down in Texas and one up here in WA, and those aren't the only ones. They also charge us more for gas in Seattle than they do in pretty much any other part of the state, even though the only reason is that they're not being told that they can't do it.
As for MS, they've seen some regulation granted, but it's obviously not enough, they're still engaging in unsafe practices like that patch Tuesday bullshit and pretending like vulnerabilities don't exist.
But, yes, clearly they're being regulated enough, right?
O Really? So basically the financial markets are highly regulated, except when there not. The fact that the portion of the entire market that was regulated is dwarfed by the ginormous amount of money represented by completely unregulated instruments, is the sign of a highly regulated market.
Sorry, I must not get it, because I'd think that it would be the other way around, that a highly regulated industry would be mostly dealing with regulated items, rather than mostly dealing with unregulated items.
lolwut, because deregulation has done such wonders for the financial and energy sectors. Likewise, the problem we've had with the net is a lack of regulation rather than too much of it. The solution to not enough regulation has never, ever been less regulation. The firms like MS and the ISPs that do very little to curtail the soft targets aren't going to get better knowing that they'll face even less regulation.
That's why I do most of my banking at credit unions. I have yet to be burned in any major way by a credit union. Since members are the only ones that can borrow from them typically and the funds are lent by other members you get an institution that is responsible primarily to the people it does business with, not some random assortment of investors.
This is a tough one, normally I'd say that making the bank accountable for breaches would be the prescription, but in this case, technically Chase is just enabling stupid behavior.
Hmm, that sounds like a compelling reason for me to continue not doing business with them. That's really not a valid excuse. IE6 isn't secure, while if you can sequester it to an internal LAN and keep it from the net you approach security, there's really no excuse for forcing that on other people. There's just way too many portable web browsers to choose from, Chrome, Firefox and Iron to name basically two, plus I'm sure that most other major browsers are available as such as well. Plus if you do it right, it's a lot easier to push updated images than it is for integrated software.
That's really bad argument you've got there. They don't have to comb through all those records to effect a ban. It's much less complicated than you make it sound. Law enforcement is more than willing to do that part of the job for them if they report something that doesn't smell right.
All you have to do is ensure that the person using the domain name is who they say they are and that they've got the proper licensing and insurance to run a business. It's not terribly complicated.
The reality is that sites that engage in child porn don't go through those steps. They don't register their business, they don't get insurance, they don't buy in their own name.
The reality is that the more prominent sites already police themselves out of necessity, verifying that they've already done that isn't really that hard.
Ultimately, the main reason why the.com and other TLDs have issues with it is that there's a huge number of domains and not the resources to do it. If you charge more and have a smaller number of sites, it gets significantly easier.
That's not an appropriate definition of morals. Morals cannot be separated from the culture that gives rise to them without risking them changing or not applying. Ever notice how "morals" that some people have are objectively immoral to others? As in they demand behavior which on the face of it nobody in their right mind would consider to be acceptable?
That's kind of a straw man argument. Islam sprang up in the Middle East a part of the world where pretty much all the trade routes went through when trading between Europe and Asia and to a lesser extent Europe and Africa. Religion or no religion, the people who inhabited the Middle East were going to have a strong sway on that.
There's never been a particularly strong case for them spreading by the sword. It's more sour grapes politics that many converted to Islam, very few converted from Islam. The main reason being that at it's core the religion is very well put together and considers what most people value. I myself was tempted to convert many years ago because of the appeal of the ethical system. It's hard not to appreciate the finesse that went into it.
That's not any different from Christianity in Europe. You joined the religion that was practiced by the local royalty. You have to recall that it wasn't really until the American revolution that religious freedom was codified, meaning that you had to go along with it.
But either way, it's hardly conversion by the sword as was stated.
That's an excellent way of getting sued for sexual harassment. Even if there isn't any porn on there, I suspect you could still find yourself sued or fired.
Sure it can, if the registrar makes good on its pledge to ban child porn from the TLD, that would likely be a significant draw to porn sites. Especially ones that are asking for people to pay. With $60 a year in registration fees, it's not going to make much difference off the bottom line of a decent site, but being able to say that you're free of unadvertised impropriety can easily add up to big sales. People that frequent those sites are often times concerned about things like kiddie pr0n and becoming a victim of ID theft. If the registrar manages to crack down on that more than the.com registrars do, then it's likely going to make much larger sums of money.
It's not a question of why they finally relented so much as what took so long. There's no inherent reason why this should've taken so long. The reasoning was that the conservatives don't want any porn anywhere, and the porn industry was concerned about being relegated to a ghetto TLD.
But, ultimately, this is probably a good thing, since.com wasn't ever really very well monitored with respect to child porn and criminal activity. One of the promises that ICM has made is that there will be no child porn on the TLD. Which is probably a part of where the hefty registration fee is coming from. Trying to do that is going to cost a goodly sum of money each year. Ultimately, time will tell whether or not this worked, but I'd say it's probably going to be good for all those involved.
Well, that is assuming that we can keep the conservatives in check about using it as a dumping ground for things that "moral Christians" oppose in public. Like sex education and GLBT information sites.
Not necessarily, it really depends on what they're giving for that $60. If it's just a registration without any extras, then yes it is. However some TLDs are more exclusive than others, while pretty much anybody can get a.com,.net or.org domain name, it's tough to get a.gov or.edu without jumping through a number of hoops.
For the.xxx TLD, it could ultimately be a bargain if it allows for porn sites to demonstrate that they aren't just using random shots which haven't been vetted to be legal or that they aren't just a front for organized crime.
That's just plain ignorant. Islam is the largest religion in the world today, but not for that reason. Islam was primarily spread via traders. They'd go in to a principality and tell the local ruler that they'd cut them a discount if they converted. They'd also promise to share their technology with them. At that point in time the various Islamic centers of learning were advanced, I mean really advanced, compared with just about everybody else.
That's the reason why there's so much diversity and it's such a large religion. It's not really that different from the local royalty in Europe deciding what religion the people of their township would practice.
Sure they just have the CIA sneak in and abduct all the employees and make off with the servers. Quite simple really, the tough part is trying to explain why your luggage is twitching to customs agents at the border.
Wrong, it's the right against self incrimination. Which is why one is allowed to plead the fifth when called to testify. It doesn't matter whether the penalty is beating or prison, the courts are not allowed to compel a defendant to testify against himself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Emphasis mine. The interpretation there is that while one can be ordered to hand over the objects, one cannot be ordered to give up the password as that's tantamount to bearing witness against oneself. It's not really that far out there and it's an interpretation which has worked in court.
That is true, however, it's the duty of any patriotic citizen to use the rights they have rather than turning them over because they were asked. What keeps those rights real is people using them.
Not without violating the 5th amendment. If you can get the key via keylogger or malware it's fair game, otherwise they have to willingly provide it or you've got to crack it. But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.
Presumably, they're looking for evidence, and based upon the effort they're going to, I suspect that they might not have a case without whatever is on the disks. Assuming that there's something on there that incriminates him. Which is why the 5th amendment protects the key.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it could always be some error in the experiment. While not particularly cogent, I do recall one time in biology doing a bacterial culture and ending up with precisely zero colonies of bacteria the next day. It's possible to happen, but it's kind of tough to keep it that sterile by accident.
It could also just be a random chance. A 1/20 chance isn't really that far fetched, I'd be somewhat more concerned if they had it down to a 1/1 000 000 chance that something was up.
The financial industry isn't regulated to substantive degree. Which is what led to the great recession. Between the fraud, theft and dealing with securities which exceed the GDP of every nation the effect was shockingly similar to if there were no regulations in place at all.
Likewise, energy companies haven't gotten the message that they're being regulated. The recent BP debacle is hardly the only major accident in recent years due to a lack of care. There was the on down in Texas and one up here in WA, and those aren't the only ones. They also charge us more for gas in Seattle than they do in pretty much any other part of the state, even though the only reason is that they're not being told that they can't do it.
As for MS, they've seen some regulation granted, but it's obviously not enough, they're still engaging in unsafe practices like that patch Tuesday bullshit and pretending like vulnerabilities don't exist.
But, yes, clearly they're being regulated enough, right?
O Really? So basically the financial markets are highly regulated, except when there not. The fact that the portion of the entire market that was regulated is dwarfed by the ginormous amount of money represented by completely unregulated instruments, is the sign of a highly regulated market.
Sorry, I must not get it, because I'd think that it would be the other way around, that a highly regulated industry would be mostly dealing with regulated items, rather than mostly dealing with unregulated items.
I think you might be loosing your mind.
lolwut, because deregulation has done such wonders for the financial and energy sectors. Likewise, the problem we've had with the net is a lack of regulation rather than too much of it. The solution to not enough regulation has never, ever been less regulation. The firms like MS and the ISPs that do very little to curtail the soft targets aren't going to get better knowing that they'll face even less regulation.
That's why I do most of my banking at credit unions. I have yet to be burned in any major way by a credit union. Since members are the only ones that can borrow from them typically and the funds are lent by other members you get an institution that is responsible primarily to the people it does business with, not some random assortment of investors.
This is a tough one, normally I'd say that making the bank accountable for breaches would be the prescription, but in this case, technically Chase is just enabling stupid behavior.
Hmm, that sounds like a compelling reason for me to continue not doing business with them. That's really not a valid excuse. IE6 isn't secure, while if you can sequester it to an internal LAN and keep it from the net you approach security, there's really no excuse for forcing that on other people. There's just way too many portable web browsers to choose from, Chrome, Firefox and Iron to name basically two, plus I'm sure that most other major browsers are available as such as well. Plus if you do it right, it's a lot easier to push updated images than it is for integrated software.
I think it's just they're way of saying that if you've got the competence to install Chrome, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying from us.
Umm, the US constitution doesn't apply to service personnel. If you want into the military you have to sign away all that in order to serve.
That's really bad argument you've got there. They don't have to comb through all those records to effect a ban. It's much less complicated than you make it sound. Law enforcement is more than willing to do that part of the job for them if they report something that doesn't smell right.
.com and other TLDs have issues with it is that there's a huge number of domains and not the resources to do it. If you charge more and have a smaller number of sites, it gets significantly easier.
All you have to do is ensure that the person using the domain name is who they say they are and that they've got the proper licensing and insurance to run a business. It's not terribly complicated.
The reality is that sites that engage in child porn don't go through those steps. They don't register their business, they don't get insurance, they don't buy in their own name.
The reality is that the more prominent sites already police themselves out of necessity, verifying that they've already done that isn't really that hard.
Ultimately, the main reason why the
That's not an appropriate definition of morals. Morals cannot be separated from the culture that gives rise to them without risking them changing or not applying. Ever notice how "morals" that some people have are objectively immoral to others? As in they demand behavior which on the face of it nobody in their right mind would consider to be acceptable?
That's kind of a straw man argument. Islam sprang up in the Middle East a part of the world where pretty much all the trade routes went through when trading between Europe and Asia and to a lesser extent Europe and Africa. Religion or no religion, the people who inhabited the Middle East were going to have a strong sway on that.
There's never been a particularly strong case for them spreading by the sword. It's more sour grapes politics that many converted to Islam, very few converted from Islam. The main reason being that at it's core the religion is very well put together and considers what most people value. I myself was tempted to convert many years ago because of the appeal of the ethical system. It's hard not to appreciate the finesse that went into it.
That's not any different from Christianity in Europe. You joined the religion that was practiced by the local royalty. You have to recall that it wasn't really until the American revolution that religious freedom was codified, meaning that you had to go along with it.
But either way, it's hardly conversion by the sword as was stated.
That's an excellent way of getting sued for sexual harassment. Even if there isn't any porn on there, I suspect you could still find yourself sued or fired.
Sure it can, if the registrar makes good on its pledge to ban child porn from the TLD, that would likely be a significant draw to porn sites. Especially ones that are asking for people to pay. With $60 a year in registration fees, it's not going to make much difference off the bottom line of a decent site, but being able to say that you're free of unadvertised impropriety can easily add up to big sales. People that frequent those sites are often times concerned about things like kiddie pr0n and becoming a victim of ID theft. If the registrar manages to crack down on that more than the .com registrars do, then it's likely going to make much larger sums of money.
It's not a question of why they finally relented so much as what took so long. There's no inherent reason why this should've taken so long. The reasoning was that the conservatives don't want any porn anywhere, and the porn industry was concerned about being relegated to a ghetto TLD.
.com wasn't ever really very well monitored with respect to child porn and criminal activity. One of the promises that ICM has made is that there will be no child porn on the TLD. Which is probably a part of where the hefty registration fee is coming from. Trying to do that is going to cost a goodly sum of money each year. Ultimately, time will tell whether or not this worked, but I'd say it's probably going to be good for all those involved.
But, ultimately, this is probably a good thing, since
Well, that is assuming that we can keep the conservatives in check about using it as a dumping ground for things that "moral Christians" oppose in public. Like sex education and GLBT information sites.
Not necessarily, it really depends on what they're giving for that $60. If it's just a registration without any extras, then yes it is. However some TLDs are more exclusive than others, while pretty much anybody can get a .com, .net or .org domain name, it's tough to get a .gov or .edu without jumping through a number of hoops.
.xxx TLD, it could ultimately be a bargain if it allows for porn sites to demonstrate that they aren't just using random shots which haven't been vetted to be legal or that they aren't just a front for organized crime.
For the
Yes, in the modern era, killing a Jew makes you antisemitic, and killing a Muslim apparently makes you a hero. Or does that only apply to torture?
Either way it's fucked up beyond belief and the primary reason why there'll never be peace in the Middle East.
That's just plain ignorant. Islam is the largest religion in the world today, but not for that reason. Islam was primarily spread via traders. They'd go in to a principality and tell the local ruler that they'd cut them a discount if they converted. They'd also promise to share their technology with them. At that point in time the various Islamic centers of learning were advanced, I mean really advanced, compared with just about everybody else.
That's the reason why there's so much diversity and it's such a large religion. It's not really that different from the local royalty in Europe deciding what religion the people of their township would practice.
Sure they just have the CIA sneak in and abduct all the employees and make off with the servers. Quite simple really, the tough part is trying to explain why your luggage is twitching to customs agents at the border.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Emphasis mine. The interpretation there is that while one can be ordered to hand over the objects, one cannot be ordered to give up the password as that's tantamount to bearing witness against oneself. It's not really that far out there and it's an interpretation which has worked in court.
That is true, however, it's the duty of any patriotic citizen to use the rights they have rather than turning them over because they were asked. What keeps those rights real is people using them.
Not without violating the 5th amendment. If you can get the key via keylogger or malware it's fair game, otherwise they have to willingly provide it or you've got to crack it. But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.
Presumably, they're looking for evidence, and based upon the effort they're going to, I suspect that they might not have a case without whatever is on the disks. Assuming that there's something on there that incriminates him. Which is why the 5th amendment protects the key.