Doesn't the NSA have their own teams to do stuff like that? I doubt they rely on SWAT..

I agree with adri, I'd like a citation on this. Because I've created many dynamic websites, and the bandwidth usage was certainly not lower. Maybe in the case of very very simple websites it was almost the same, but lower? Not a chance.

When I did my compliance training for my job (just a few weeks ago) they made it quite clear that anything that is considered offensive to any of the "protected categories" (ie race, age, gender, ect) is forbidden. For example if you're making sexist jokes that offends someone. That's a violation. So I doubt it's just misuse of the term. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the law.

Hmm just realized that link is for Australia. Here's one for the U.S.:

http://www.netplaces.com/human-resource-management/developing-company-policies/sexual-harassment-awareness.htm

"For instance, an employee who overhears two people laughing at a dirty joke may be offended. Therefore, something that a third party overhears may be considered sexual harassment."

http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/hr-and-staff/what-you-need-to-know-about-discrimination-and-equal-opportunity-laws-21052012.html

"The definition of sexual harassment has also changed, providing that a reasonable person need only anticipate the possibility of the harassed person being offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct in question. Previously, the definition required a reasonable person to anticipate the harassed person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct."

Note the use of the word "offended" in there. True it's sexual harassment (though I'd assume this applies to all harassment as well), but I think that was what the article in question was talking about too, wasn't it?

Bear in mind that the legal definition of something is not always the same as the dictionary definition. And in this case it's the legal definition that matters.

I wasn't aware there was a difference... harassment is something that offends someone, is it not?

It sounds like you're assuming that people would only want to kill other people with a gun. Most people I know who own guns use them for hunting deer. I'm interested in how your argument would look if you took that into account.

Well I'd assume if it was a country where sexual harassment was not outlawed, then the person who asked the question wouldn't really be worried about it, and hence wouldn't have bothered to ask the question in the first place.

Yes you do. It's an actual defined legal right. In a workplace no one is allowed to say something that is discriminatory based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, or even health conditions. Personally I think it's a fairly good rule too. Work is where you work. And it's not sexist-the rule applies to comments women make as well as men (and yes women make these comments too).

Well the problem happens when the researchers that find the vulnerability are working for people who would rather exploit a vulnerability then patch it. Of course you're right in saying that no system is without it's flaws (at least I think that's what you're saying).

You have a good point.

That wasn't my understanding of what GP meant by "The Public". That wasn't what I meant by it either.

There's nothing wrong with that mentality. People, generally, can be very intelligent about a great number of issues. However "The Public", as in the mass collection of people, is generally very stupid.