Public interest
Public interest was defined in the Clive Ponting case. It's the personal interests of whichever bunch of politicians is currently in power.
3323 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
So various business and government sites will make it very hard to use them without this.
Then after a bit of mission creep, even funny foreigners will have to have one of these IDs to use many US sites.
Some other governments will join in. Some will object to the US knowing everything their citizens do, so will start their own rival systems to be forced on their citizens.
Don't those idiots *ever* think things through? OK, some of them want just this, but the rest?
And of course the 'smaller government' lot will love it, because that's smaller for *them*, not for everyone else.
Exactly how is someone who doesn't believe in a god supposed to be wanting to become like god?
Science is about finding out how the universe works by examining and testing it, rather than by taking tribal legends created thousands of years ago as infallible.
Technology is about building on scientific knowledge to make useful tools.
Neither of those require any gods in the process.
As several people have commented, we could reclaim unused addresses in various ways to stave off the crisis.
And this would achieve exactly what? Well, it would let people go on saying "We don't have to do anything quite yet" and carry on doing nothing.
And it would stave the crisis off for what, a few months maybe? Probably less time than it would take to actually do the reclaiming.
And since internet takeup is still accelerating, this would mean that when the crisis finally does hit it will be even worse.
Rather than trying to map everything it should be a lot easier to work out how the brain develops, and how the connections grow and are pruned.
There's a lot less than 150 trillion proteins etc. used to grow the brain and to control how the wiring develops, it's *got* to be easier than mapping the result..
"more than a few philosophical differences to sort out."
The hacker culture is very very non-authoritarian, to the extent that imposing a rigid hierarchy would destroy it. Even compromising with such authority simply would not work.
The vatican is absolutely committed to a rigid hierarchy, and will not compromise in any way.
The two are simply incompatible.
I just realised I missed something there. That section ends "(whether or not in the United Kingdom),"
That means that the US Homeland Security can legally grab the entire database from Lockheed Martin. And if anyone thinks they will hesitate for an instant to do so, have you ever considered the advantages of owning a really nice bridge, because I've got one to sell you.
"f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings"
There's no restriction to say there should be any prior evidence against someone. That means they are not just limited to looking up individual records, they can trawl through the entire database on the off-chance they might find something.
In fact they can export the whole damn database to the PNC if they feel like it, and then do whatever they like - after all it's the PNC so it's for criminal proceedings.
"In addition, an independent assessment of the seating design and layout demonstrated that the seats on the Class 450 are ergonomically sound."
Well, there you are. The studies show that it's perfectly OK, so the trivial detail that people don't physically fit can be discounted - the theory says it's fine so the data can be ignored.
(Maybe they should get their carriages from Elbonia?)
"all applications must be approved by the International Foundation for Online Responsibility"
Is this supposed to be how they will keep dodgy operators out? By an approval process?
Either it will be too tight and reject legitimate bids or too loose and let in crooks. In fact those will overlap.
And it could only work if it's easier to find porn there than elsewhere on the net. Which is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Who, in which country, decides what classes as porn? Who decides what kinds of operation are legitimate?
Do they really think that porn operators will pay to restrict themselves to a domain that is trivial to block? Even if there is some advantage to having such a domain, they can simply point a non-xxx domain to the same server.
What advantage is this to anyone at all except the people selling the domains?
"upholds heterosexuality as God’s creative intent for humanity, and subsequently views homosexual expression as outside of God’s will".
A large proportion of humans are homosexual. This also happens in many other animals. It's not in any way 'unnatural', it happens in all cultures and all places and in many species.
If their god intended humans to be entirely and exclusively heterosexual but created them as they actually are, in part homosexual, then that would imply that their god, according to their own statement, is grossly professionally incompetent.
"Some browsers offer a numbing sequences of nightly drops - and they may or may not work and they may or may not be reflect in what the final product will do,"
Yes, it's called open source development. Is he really claiming that Microsoft didn't make nightly builds available to the IE9 developers?
Obvious answer - any time a site is threatened by this, the people involved will plant fake links that redirect to that site. It should be pretty easy for them to get many thousands of people who have no connection to that site whatever to visit it.
And just what are Sony intending to do with all those addresses anyway? The company that planted rootkits on their legitimate customers' machines is hardly one that should be trusted with this sort of information - what was that magistrate thinking?
To close someone's business down, they should at least have a right of reply. What is the desperate rush that can't wait long enough for them to have their say?
If you want an example of what could go wrong when a judge doesn't understand the net, look at the Finnish judge who issued an order handing over the *entire* anon.penet.fi membership database to the Scientologists because one person had been posting material they claimed was copyright. Fortunately the police had more sense when the appalling consequences of enforcing that order were explained to them.