supposedly this law is intended to stop hacking, but as this article explains and this one. there is room within it to be miss used and go after people doing activity that is not hacking. it has too many loosely defined areas so it could end up going after different people than it is being made out to be targeting.
the first article said they might try and sweep this through the floor of congress on "cyber week".
what gets at me the most is these law makers time and time again keep trying to sweep these types of internet reform through congress as quietly as possible.
what do you guys think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Bad regulations always come eventually to business, but people will still carry on certain behaviors. It's like Facebook wanting to deanonymize the internet, it's just not going to happen especially whenever you have a group of hipsters called Anonymous. I don't care about what laws they pass, only in whether they can enforce them and how they enforce them.
I mean there are so many laws on the books now it's difficult to keep up, and some of the stuff is rather arcane to the point where you can't parse a sentence so bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What I find hilarious about FB is all the people who are using fake names now that their names are public. Google is even worse. No for the 9th time I don't want you to show my real name. If it would stop the 14 year old's from being turds I'd go for it, but half the time youtube comments are worse than advice from a bathroom stall.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
What I find hilarious about FB is all the people who are using fake names now that their names are public. Google is even worse. No for the 9th time I don't want you to show my real name. If it would stop the 14 year old's from being turds I'd go for it, but half the time youtube comments are worse than advice from a bathroom stall.
This is a little tangential to the main point, but on the internet I would love nothing more to have everyone's identity be anonymous, but their age be public. Sadly this is impossible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
Bad regulations always come eventually to business, but people will still carry on certain behaviors. It's like Facebook wanting to deanonymize the internet, it's just not going to happen especially whenever you have a group of hipsters called Anonymous. I don't care about what laws they pass, only in whether they can enforce them and how they enforce them.
Can we ban the word "hipster"? Nobody knows what it means anymore. Nobody is a self-proclaimed hipster because everyone is accused of being one. I would've chosen the (equally bannable) "troll" for Anonymous, since they do engage in a lot of trolling, back when "troll" meant something. Plus, their activities are chronicled on Encyclopædia Dramatica moar than any other place.
Also, aren't a lot of these hacks coming in from other countries?
I would question anything from Faux News, but this idea is kinda...how? How would one tax email anyway? The ship's sailed on any time when taxing the internet made sense. (That would be the minute anything beginning with "alt." left the American lexicon, replaced by anything ending with ".com".)
Goddammit, politicians. Technology does not work that way! You can't eliminate anonymity, tax me for YouTube and Wikipedia, or whatever else you're thinking of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
CGoddammit, politicians. Technology does not work that way! You can't eliminate anonymity, tax me for YouTube and Wikipedia, or whatever else you're thinking of.
Well, you know what they say: it's a series of tubes.
Not going to work, not going to happen. If anything like this would even pop up, something new, like schinternet would pop up and everyone and it's dog would start using that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'm surprised that this Bill would apparently be retroactive (sorry, haven't been bothered to read the text of the Bill itself). Ex post facto laws are plainly unfair and against the whole purpose and history of laws, as anyone with or without a legal education should understand.
From what I understand of the Bill, it's utterly absurd and serves no justice. It is bad law and should not ever be in force.
This is a little tangential to the main point, but on the internet I would love nothing more to have everyone's identity be anonymous, but their age be public. Sadly this is impossible.
I'd rather mental age and reasonableness, or normalcy, heh.
Can we ban the word "hipster"? Nobody knows what it means anymore. Nobody is a self-proclaimed hipster because everyone is accused of being one. I would've chosen the (equally bannable) "troll" for Anonymous, since they do engage in a lot of trolling, back when "troll" meant something. Plus, their activities are chronicled on Encyclopædia Dramatica moar than any other place.
Also, aren't a lot of these hacks coming in from other countries?
Anonymous' name comes from the growth in having an "anonymous online persona." Which can be considered counter culture and is to a large extent, because many people don't pursue using boards in a similar way. Most research into groups like Anonymous or gamer guilds and the like have only begun to show up more and more since the middle 2000's. So it's a new phenomenon. There are "good Anonymous" people who have helped persons such as with the Green Revolution, and "bad Anonymous" who want to wreck havoc and have subsequently went to jail.
I wouldn't call the "bad Anonymous" hackers "hipster," rather hackers. "Hipster" also doesn't necessarily mean troll. If we consider that yes some Anonymous are hackers and have went to jail, there are others who have created Lolcats and build up brands around that successfully. Much like Ben and Jerries' Ice Cream was created as a hippy counter culture brand, that granted has went very main stream but remains a well funded company that is respected. Lolcats, a good that Anonymous created and some people commoditized, but do I expect that Zuckerburg's goal to make people post with name and picture to come true? No, because that would destroy the creative seed bed for some of the creative good that comes from certain other forums which is a counter culture for this generation.
It's like "good regulations" and "bad regulations" and "good taxes" and "bad taxes." To use Fox's point about "bad taxes" to tax all emails which are considered a main source of cheap communications at low value and highly used in several corporations, non profits, and governments to communicate between different layers would stifle and even crush some budgets for an "email tax." Now a "good tax" can be to create a national internet sales tax, and redistribute that money to each state evenly to bypass the nightmare of a company having to collect different pennies on the dollar and distribute them to some small, out of the way town that's 1 square mile and population 50,000 cows, 2 people, and a dog.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
supposedly this law is intended to stop hacking, but as this article explains and this one. there is room within it to be miss used and go after people doing activity that is not hacking. it has too many loosely defined areas so it could end up going after different people than it is being made out to be targeting.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
the first article said they might try and sweep this through the floor of congress on "cyber week".
what gets at me the most is these law makers time and time again keep trying to sweep these types of internet reform through congress as quietly as possible.
what do you guys think?
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
I mean there are so many laws on the books now it's difficult to keep up, and some of the stuff is rather arcane to the point where you can't parse a sentence so bad.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This is a little tangential to the main point, but on the internet I would love nothing more to have everyone's identity be anonymous, but their age be public. Sadly this is impossible.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/27/should-government-tax-email/
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Can we ban the word "hipster"? Nobody knows what it means anymore. Nobody is a self-proclaimed hipster because everyone is accused of being one. I would've chosen the (equally bannable) "troll" for Anonymous, since they do engage in a lot of trolling, back when "troll" meant something. Plus, their activities are chronicled on Encyclopædia Dramatica moar than any other place.
Also, aren't a lot of these hacks coming in from other countries?
I would question anything from Faux News, but this idea is kinda...how? How would one tax email anyway? The ship's sailed on any time when taxing the internet made sense. (That would be the minute anything beginning with "alt." left the American lexicon, replaced by anything ending with ".com".)
Goddammit, politicians. Technology does not work that way! You can't eliminate anonymity, tax me for YouTube and Wikipedia, or whatever else you're thinking of.
On phasing:
Well, you know what they say: it's a series of tubes.
Not going to work, not going to happen. If anything like this would even pop up, something new, like schinternet would pop up and everyone and it's dog would start using that.
From what I understand of the Bill, it's utterly absurd and serves no justice. It is bad law and should not ever be in force.
I'd rather mental age and reasonableness, or normalcy, heh.
With all due respect, I think the US does not have as stellar a human rights record as it purports and would like to believe.
It may be worthwhile to do some research before holding in such high esteem the US historical and present addressing of human rights.
Anonymous' name comes from the growth in having an "anonymous online persona." Which can be considered counter culture and is to a large extent, because many people don't pursue using boards in a similar way. Most research into groups like Anonymous or gamer guilds and the like have only begun to show up more and more since the middle 2000's. So it's a new phenomenon. There are "good Anonymous" people who have helped persons such as with the Green Revolution, and "bad Anonymous" who want to wreck havoc and have subsequently went to jail.
I wouldn't call the "bad Anonymous" hackers "hipster," rather hackers. "Hipster" also doesn't necessarily mean troll. If we consider that yes some Anonymous are hackers and have went to jail, there are others who have created Lolcats and build up brands around that successfully. Much like Ben and Jerries' Ice Cream was created as a hippy counter culture brand, that granted has went very main stream but remains a well funded company that is respected. Lolcats, a good that Anonymous created and some people commoditized, but do I expect that Zuckerburg's goal to make people post with name and picture to come true? No, because that would destroy the creative seed bed for some of the creative good that comes from certain other forums which is a counter culture for this generation.
It's like "good regulations" and "bad regulations" and "good taxes" and "bad taxes." To use Fox's point about "bad taxes" to tax all emails which are considered a main source of cheap communications at low value and highly used in several corporations, non profits, and governments to communicate between different layers would stifle and even crush some budgets for an "email tax." Now a "good tax" can be to create a national internet sales tax, and redistribute that money to each state evenly to bypass the nightmare of a company having to collect different pennies on the dollar and distribute them to some small, out of the way town that's 1 square mile and population 50,000 cows, 2 people, and a dog.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.