They are a blog (your 'page' has words and pictures, time stamped, aka a BLOG).

Connected to an email service.

With some automated responses (like) and mass mailing features.

Connected to some games

All held together by exclusivity That is, they won't let you someone's blog, email them, or get emails, unless you join them.

Well, I did leave some extra stuff out - but basically the other stuff is all the privacy killing back office things that no users wants - i.e. the ability to tag other people's photos, the ability to track people viewing, etc. etc.

If you make a distributed version of it, it's called THE INTERNET.

P.S. It already exists. Frankly, the entire thing is just a simplified way for non technical people to get involved on the internet. Not everyone realizes how useful a blog, mass mailings, etc. are so they packaged them up as a "Social Network" and suddenly people that never heard of a blog are blogging.

Oh NO!. I better go into hiding! Who knows what they willl do to me!

That law is so vague it applies to ANYTHING.

"damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security in any country"

First note that it allows for damaging the national security in any country. So the UK is now the world police? Hey, I thought that was the USA's job! Also, does that mean they will protect ISIL? Or North Korea? Does that mean when the government of South Korea attempts to defend itself from a cyberattack from North Korea, they are violating the UK's law? It's damaging the National Security of North Korea by preventing them from undermining South Korea!

Human welfare, the environment, the economy or National security pretty much covers ANYTHING. And the word damage is similarly vague.

When I use Hack BP's computer and find out they are illegally dumping oil in Scotland, isn't that damaging the economy by revealing BP's crime?

When the FBI pretends to be a criminal on Facebook, isn't that damaging the 'welfare" of the human criminal?

This is a law designed to let the UK selectively arrest anyone who does anything on a computer that is 'unauthorised'.

Worst law ever

Wow, the ability to come up with "he did it, but it' wasn't bad enough to warrant legal action" excuses has had a huge renaissance.

I disagree. You don't have to harden your internet connected refrigerator against malicious attacks.

Why? Because when you ask "what could possibly go wrong?" the answer is your food will spoil, and you will have to throw it out. It's not like spoiled food is not instantly recognizable.

But when you ask that company about medical equipment, the answer is PEOPLE WILL DIE.

The problem is obvious, it just takes half a second to think and you know you need security.

Actually, the real problem is that idiot manufacturers refused to think at all.

When asked where he got his ideas, he once said: 'From a little ideas shop in Bognor Regis'.

http://www.neilgaiman.com/p/Co...

1) This is prettier and cooler.

2) Easier to use for one off jobs, where you have one letter. 3) They envision ending/greatly reducing the physical stamp program. This will piss off the collectors a lot.

4) They get paid for it, rather than the company that makes the QR codes etc.

Basically, I don't think it has enough advantages to catch on somewhere where they already have stamps. But ISIL might want it for their new country, I bet they want to replace Syria's and Iraq's old postal system.

Specifically, ask them questions.

Start with:

Is this software related to our industry?

Do we need some advantage over our competition or can we just use the same stuff they do?

What's our back up plan if we discover that our self created software ends up making the Obamacare website rollout look good?

How much money do you think we will save?

If it ends up costing more money, how much we will sink into this project before quitting?

Monetarily yes, but not legally. That is, when you buy a used car, it may have been repaired, or not. No way for you to tell.

Why? Because they are not legally required to FIX the car, just legally required to offer to fix it.

But that can't be a big problem right? I mean, most cars get fixed, right?

No. They don't. Most cars are never fixed. The problems are often small - so it has a half second delay in the brakes, who notices/ Or it has a small tendency to roll over, no big deal.

In Europe, that is not the case. If a car is recalled, ALL the cars are fixed.

No. They notify you and you can decide to come in or not. They pay for it only if you ask.

So if you refuse to do anything - or the car company says they can't fix your car for another 90 days, your car remains broken.

Chances are you won't stop driving the vehicle until then and they won't pay for a replacement.

Quite a few people ignore the recall and then sell the car to some poor shmuck who never received the recall note.l

Specifically, they need to make the car company responsible for every single repair of every single recalled vehicle.

As in, if they sold a faulty product, they have to fix it, whether it is a a set of brakes that don't work, or a window that won't open.

Basically, we end the 'buyer beware' system for new cars.

Is it that hard to put in a requirement that

1) Do the installation in phases

2) Only move on to Phase 2 if Phase 1 works without any problems, as expected.

3) Require third party testing to be sure that Phase 1 is done fairly

Why would I want to get ride of them?

P.S. PRSVP or STF, because NAWE are SAaD

The original stats (pre internet) came from the Kinsey Reports (via wikipedia: D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: Books.Google.co.uk, Sexual Deviance, page 391. Guilford Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2. )

New studies suggest that the Kinsey estimates are no longer accurate (if they ever were). There is no clear evidence that the internet caused it, but I am not the first person to suggest it.

Psychiatrists have found that they can not end any sexuality, but that they can in fact add new perversions, mainly be slowly introducing the desired perversion into sexual fantasies. Some have theorized that while they can't 'cure' gay, they can convert to bisexuality. I am not sure about that, but it is definitely not absurd to shift sexuality from kids to something else