I definately thought that. NATO was losing relevence. Also, it's on the surface completely counter to Putin's apparent goal: reduce NATO and West influence. So what's happening? A few stragglers no one wants jump on the Russian train, but a majority who had put NATO plans on hold are now seriously reconsidering. This will in effect bring NATO closer and from more directions. Actually, not just in effect, it's already happening: US troops are now rotating through Eastern Europe to appease allies. This also might long term strengthen ties to US missile defense systems. Keep in mind the Russians signed a treaty with Ukraine saying they would respect soverign rights of the Ukraine in return for their former nuclear missiles. You have to think any future countries who bargain with Russia will take this into account...meaning, any agreement is barely worth the paper it's written on as long as Russia has a standing army.
However, I'm NOT drinking the looney Cool-Aid to the point I'd actually believe some similar plot as the idi0ts who think Bush/Israel/BoogeyManInc planned 9/11.
See, that's the trick: He doesn't have to sign anything he disagrees with.
I know that it is not uncommon for Congress to send "poison pills" to the President (whoever it happens to be at the time). Bush the Younger got many from Congress, and he wasn't the first. He won't be the last. It's one of the reasons I favor giving the President some form of line-item VETO power. If there's a reason he doesn't like a bill, he can go on record as not liking a portion by striking it and send it back to Congress to re-consider.
Better yet, I would like to see some responsibility in Congress. Something that requires "riders" to a bill actually be related to the bill would be nice. "But that's the only way some things can get passed," I hear someone say. My reply is, "Yeah. Do you suppose there might be a reason for that?"
It would also be nice if Congress would spend more time reviewing laws that have been on the books for a while and consider repealing those that are deemed to be no longer relevant. I would rather they do that than sit around wondering what else they could do to micromanage my life.
...but I won't say it, even though I'd be justified in doing so.
I was just looking through the beta for Slashdot (which I don't like, by the way) and saw a "Hall of Fame" page. I looked at it and this was one of the most popular stories of all time. It was posted when Obama was elected the first time.
How do you color the whole issue as him only resigning, when three board members quit over his presence there. That's a lot of pressure from the company.
It looks an awful lot like coercion...
But, isn't it up for him to sue if he feels he did not resign voluntarily? It seems like he probably would not do so.
The problem is, the CEO's job is to be the figurehead for the company. He's not the President -- he's not in an operational position, his sole job is to represent the company to the board and the public. His inability to do so effectively is absolutely grounds for removing him. Its a fine line to walk when you get arcane labor laws into the picture, but the fact is, with the uproar he wasn't capable of doing the singular thing his job exists to do. If he was the President of the company, I doubt he would've been pressured to resign. (Its very much like the laws against things like weight or sex discrimination -- when someone's job is specifically related to their fitness or gender, its been shown repeatedly that laws like these don't apply.)
Diversity does not mean tolerating bigotry directed at minorities. It's crazy that you talk about tolerating disagreement when Eich is the one who donated money to criminalize what he disagrees with.
It may be baseless, but it's a necessary assumption. A MITM attack means that, effectively, you are transmitting data in the clear. It is good security practice to assume that all such data is being recorded and/or logged.
Then do work at work, and non-work at home.
If they do decrypt personal traffic, would they be responsible for any medical data they intercept, thus triggering HIPAA?
Note: this is a gross oversimplification, but accurate relative to this story and what you're asking
HIPAA has to do with patient data, not medical data. If you're not a patient of the company doing the deep inspection, then there's no issue, and there's still no issue if you signed an appropriate HIPAA waiver, even if you ARE a patient and the company in question IS a hospital. If you go to HealthVault or some other site with *your* health records in it, and they are decrypting it, that's not HIPAA in the sense you're talking about.
Hell, even if they were shuffling the SSL traffic to a cloud service hosted by a 3rd party to do the scanning, AND you were a patient, AND the 3rd party was decrypting the data, that is just fine as long as the right paperwork is in place between the two companies.
The bug was found due to observed behavior, not due to a code review.
I've been laid off 3 times since my last real update here on
Glad you found RUU Wuvv here
Nothing significant to see here. Yeah, more restrictions from Apple development guidelines coming due to asshats being asshats. *sigh*
Any program which runs right is obsolete.