is that this is exactly the sort of overreach of intent that people said would happen with the DMCA. There's a lot of dirt in those emails on Sony (like them coordinating with Attorneys General to attack Google). Much of that information falls under what used to be freedom of press. The DMCA screws all that. Now anything you don't want making the rounds you just copyright and an ironclad and unquestionable law shuts it down instantly. I believe the phrase is "Chilling Effect"...

Bitcoin is secure?
Bill Clinton said it best: "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

If software manufacturers actually cared to fix things fast, there would be no need. But as fixing bugs costs money and there is _zero_ penalty for not doing so, most do not bother unless forced to. 90 days is plenty. Things not fixed in 90 days will never be fixed, unless there is at the very least a risk of bad press.

90 days is plenty if they are actually prepared to maintain their stuff. It seems MS is not.

Indeed. But since it is FOSS, a single "true überwizard" that then submits a patch is enough for all to have a patch. In the closed-source case, some mediocre, underpaid and unmotivated corporate slave has to take an interest and manage to fix it, and that takes far longer in most cases. 90 days is completely unacceptable though.

Actually, for FOSS projects a single user that fixes it and submits a patch is enough for all users to have a patch. This is much more powerful and the reason fix-times are often measured in hours for well-done FOSS projects.

I agree. Even a second-rated software shop should have no trouble meeting that deadline. It appears that MS is still third-rate. The only thing that will help is making them fully responsible for any and all damage caused by their inaction.

The tearing up of the Constitution actually got well and truly under way by the tyrant Lincoln

You could go back to John J Marshall.

In fact, if you really want to look at the history, you could say the Constitution was "torn up" before it was even ratified. It was never anything but a counter-revolutionary document intended to create rule by the elite.

You read the ratification debates, you'll see what I mean. It's ugly the way the impulse for liberty and democracy was thwarted by a bunch of wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes or give up their slaves.

And Carter. And Ford

Probably the only two since Kennedy who were NOT sociopaths. Whatever you think of their politics, they seem to have been decent human beings. You can't say that about anyone who came after.

Yes. And totalitarian regimes love coal-fired power plants for some reason.

Who the duck would class WikiLeaks as journalists? They may be many things, but I dont consider them to be journalists any more than a group of women gossiping over coffee could be considered journalists.

And coal-fired powerplants do not lift anyone out of poverty. North Korea has PLENTY of coal-fired powerplants.

You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution?

First of all, "scientific evidence" doesn't show whether or not something is or is not "pollution". "Pollution" is a term of judgement.

The science shows that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can change the climate. There are not "PLENTY" of scientists who disagree with that.

http://www.mufon.com/ufo-news