Tend to agree, though there could be another possible future. Nations get tired of this nonsense and start instituting border proxies. Maybe traffic is unrestricted between nations that agree to punish those who attack on other signatories, and refrain from government attacks (think US+EU and a few others). Countries that don't crack down on hacking get their traffic proxied, with only whitelisted protocols accepted (maybe strict html without javascript, plus images in specified formats chosen for simplicity and checked for standards-compliance, and email subject to a delay to allow for spam discovery and scanning/etc - perhaps without attachments). It would basically be the death of the internet as we know it, and obviously the usual suspects will be all for it.

When what happened to Sony starts happening to many major corporations there will be a lot of talk about changing how things work. From what I've read Sony's security seemed pretty typical for any large company - a firewall against incoming connections, and little else once you get inside. Companies aren't going to want to build a complex security infrastructure internally, let alone really strong measures like isolated networks - it costs a lot and is a lot less useful unless you punch a million holes in it (which diminishes the security). With regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley companies want to be able to account for every hour charged to every project and every mile expensed and every bolt ordered against the bottom line each quarter. Gone are the days when everybody just managed their department on a spreadsheet and cascaded the numbers up the levels. Then you have all the tax nonsense - governments don't like it when the value you declare to customs doesn't match the value you get when you finish doing all your double-irish whiskey with a shot of bermuda rum shell games, and good luck having that happen without about 14 layers of integration. Keep in mind the guys running all this IT stuff are in China next to the guys doing all the hacking on behalf of North Korea in the first place. :)

I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.

You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.

What's a bomb? Seriously. An explosive device remotely explodable can be used in mining, or as a weapon. The exact same device.

Just refuse to allow anyone to be named Gatling.

(Well, I know that's not exactly a Gatling gun, but it's pretty close.)

Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.

I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)

That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.

As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.

Sounds like a win-win, so why is anyone opposed?

(Well, OK, the Seattle police have some decent arguments, but they also appear to have a shady history which causes one to doubt that the arguments raised are their real reasons. Still, they *are* decent arguments. I'm not sure what the resolution should be, but I am sure it should involve continual taping to an archival store that cannot be edited...which is an impossible ideal, but get as close to it as possible.)

Well, not the only ones, but certainly some of the most important ones. I wish I could believe that they would fairly see the evidence, but there are so many games played with what evidence juries are allowed to see that I'll be a bit dubious until it starts happening.

Well if he'd had his camera going, this would be made clearly obvious. So why are the police against camera? (To be fair, many of them aren't. But I'm talking about the ones that are. Which to me means they've got something to hide, if nothing more than a feeling that their privacy is being invaded, and where they were dominant, now they are supervised.)

Unfortunately there have been enough instances where the police are obviously lying and at fault that I prefer objective evidence that doesn't require that I theorize to fill in the pieces. E.g., there are power stains on someone's hands, but how do you know that he got them when you think he did? A reasonable hypothesis is that he got them struggling to take the officer's gun, but it this actually what happened? And if he was 150 feet away when he was shot, was he fleeing? A camera would remove uncertainties...provided it was secured against tampering. (Yeah, OK, nothing's certain. It could reduce uncertainties quite significantly.)

And why is anyone against having a camera to prevent this kind of uncertainty?

How could you possibly get an answer to that question that you could trust? It's a reasonable question, and my guess would be quite a small percentage. But I can't think of a single way of getting the information that I would trust. I *would* wager a small sum that you could show it would be to the officer's benefit to blame someone else even if he knew he was at fault.

You are correct about "the rule", the problem is that one instance of vile behavior can totally cancel out over a hundred instances of good behavior. Depending on how bad it is it can cancel out over a thousand. And while there is a definite limit as to how good a cop can be, the limit as to how bad he can be is extremely high. And they don't effectively "self police". Even the "good cop" tends to feel that he must protect the bad cop, no matter what he is guilty of. And tends to act to protect him.

OTOH, in many parts of the community, there is much more expectation of encountering a bad cop than a "good cop". And this is justified by what gets reported by believable sources. (That you believe other sources is almost irrelevant.) And there is, unfortunately, a certain amount of evidence to show that the perception of those who don't trust the police is correct. This ranges from their armed intrusion into the wrong house, and shooting the residents to the less violent, but much more frequent action which have created the "crime description" of "driving while brown or black". Please note that it doesn't seem to matter what the race of the officer is, so I tend to consider this abuse a "crime of power" rather than "racial intolerance", but I admit to being uncertain about the reasons.

I'm sure that happens too. But given the punishment that is applied to the one against whom the claim is made, I'm not going to believe that happens very often. It exposes you to retribution, and you don't get any result (except PR).

Yes. And do you know what people call those who send important information over insecure links? Fools.

Seems a bit silly to store the details you need to access the internet (in the case you router dies) only accessible when you have working internet access. Maybe you should store just those details somewhere you can access without the internet?

Brown was shot because he escalated the situation to a "high risk arrest" by going for the cop's gun. Period.

We have no evidence that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun, only the word of a cop who's been caught lying before. Cops know that "he was going for my gun" are magic words to justify themselves when they commit murders.

And of course it's irrevelvant whether Brown tried to get control of Wilson's gun earlier in the confrontation. Brown was not trying to do so when he was murdered, he was (according to the majority of witness testimony) attempting to surender.