Assange had the majority vote. TIMES reserved the right to choose the winner regardless of the poll outcome.

That's probably what we have to fix. Before it probably wasn't even close to being a pressing issue. Nobody gave a shit who provided internet service as long as they had access. Now we've got problems left and right. The ACTA simply still existing and in consideration is one such disaster waiting to happen, if it hasn't already. Another bill passed giving the government and other interested parties the _unrestricted_ ability to completely take down sites based on copyright issues. Emphasis on unrestricted. Taking action against illegal and clearly defined sites I'm fine with, but the powers given are so unrestricted you'd think the smart law makers were baked the day that bill passed because they've given up on the shit hole our system has become. I learned that when laws are passed that allow one party to forcefully comply with certain procedures they are so tightly restricted that it only affects the cases the law was actually brought up for (illegal sharing and profiteering). Even the hint of a copyright violation and your site can go down, or blocked by the ISP. I don't want to play the slippery slope card because most of the time it's an incorrect assumption, but the clear lack of well defined and restricted boundaries hint at more problems down the road.

Here's the problem that should be more pressing: our connection to the internet is coming dangerously close to being choked and restricted by those in power (aka people with money). Second part of that problem is that most people currently have _one_ choice when it comes to getting that connection. In my area, I've got Comcast. Oh, and another shady person couple blocks down offering to set up a special internet package, but it turns out their connection was Comcast as well. Whatever they were doing, that's not what I would consider an "alternative" to the monopoly we've got here.

How do we fix this? Let's start by getting more people to understand that this is a problem they cannot stand idly by watch unfold.

More secure? Even if everybody knows the passphrase?

I'm positive you have to be served the subpoena directly. Or his spouse can receive it, but in that case there would need to be a follow up to verify that he eventually did receive the document.

I can think of one use, but it's not something that's common (yet). Sound Manager 2 makes use of Flash and when done right it can be used to add sound to the UI. It's not done right, if at all usually, but sounds that represent interactions with the UI can do wonders for the user experience and intuitiveness.

This must be an early announcement because as of 11AM central time I can't find it in the app store. I think they jumped the gun a bit.

There. Fixed that for you. I don't really think Twitter sucks, though.

Thank goodness. Lately all I've been reading about is how we're getting screwed by court decisions left and right. Good to hear something done right.

The title includes "Take 2" because it seems that my words offended someone and were forcibly removed from the conversation. Hopefully that was only because of my foul language and not due to foul play by somebody else. I really wanted to see replies to my comment but that can't happen when it outright gets deleted without so much of a notice, can it? I made my post last night, and basically archived it on my blog at the same time last night so thankfully I can repost it (with the expletives edited out).

Consumer Watchdog really dropped the ball on this one. The analogy in their (potentially creepy) advertisement fails on a level that hurts their cause. Supposedly, Google is handing out ice cream and requesting full body scans in return? What Google provides isn’t akin to [expletive] buying ice cream, those [expletive] [expletive] seem to feel like just because they can make an analogy it’s correct.

Warning: logic up ahead!

Ice cream cannot be compared to the search capabilities and other apps Google provides. Unless you are in the business of dealing with ice cream (whether selling, re-selling, or providing them to a game show so they can dump it on a contestant’s head) ice cream will never be a vital component. What Google provides are search, analytic, and collaboration tools (among others) that are the lifeblood for some companies (who provide support) and the backbone of others (even the U.S. government).

By comparing that to ice cream they make themselves look like silly little [expletive]. I apologize for my rudeness but this pisses me off.

I completely understand and agree that tracking is invasive by nature. I want you to understand that I’m not simply backing Google because I’m in love with them or getting paid off; IANAL, but the manner in which this advert portrays Google is unfair and will not hold up should it be presented to a court.

I personally don’t think that a “Don’t Track Me” list will work. How many people have heard, been witness to, or a victim of unsolicited phone calls after putting themselves on a “Do Not Call” list? I’m not going to argue much about that, though. My real beef is with the advert.

Funny thing is that I clicked that link, saw that my cookie associated me with things I didn't like, and proceeded to remove them and add subjects in which I was actually interested in.

Google is handing out ice cream and requesting full body scans in return? What Google provides isn't akin to fucking buying ice cream, those stupid S.O.B.s seem to feel like just because they can make an analogy it's correct.

Warning: logic up ahead!

Ice cream cannot be compared to the search capabilities and other apps Google provides. Unless you are in the business of dealing with ice cream (whether selling, re-selling, or providing them to a game show so they can dump it on a contestant's head) ice cream will never be a vital component. What Google provides are search, analytic, and collaboration tools (among others) that are the lifeblood for some companies (who provide support) and the backbone of others (even the U.S. government).

By comparing that to ice cream they make themselves look like silly little shits. I apologize for my rudeness but this pisses me off.

I completely understand and agree that tracking is invasive by nature. I want you to understand that I'm not simply backing Google because I'm in love with them or getting paid off; IANAL, but the manner in which this advert portrays Google is unfair and will not hold up should it be presented to a court.

I personally don't think that a "Don't Track Me" list will work. How many people have heard, been witness to, or a victim of unsolicited phone calls after putting themselves on a "Do Not Call" list? I'm not going to argue much about that, though. My real beef is with the advert.