More legislation to deal with with this form of terrorism will not deal with terrorism. In fact, it will validate terrorism as one more liberal democracy slides towards an autocratic police state.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the legislation is to reduce senseless deaths, it would be much more effective to simply outlaw driving by private citizens.

Cheers, Bruce.

Your comments are entirely off the point.

'cold fjord' did not indicate that he abhorred all spying. His issue appears to be with the NSA's use of domestic spying. Something that they are not supposed to engage in.

Domestic spying would seem to be the purview of the FBI. Since they are bound by the "normal" criminal system, they're use of spying is limited to ensure that your rights are properly respected.

The NSA and CIA etc, do not have to respect the rights of anyone they spy on because (at least in theory) they do not spy on US citizens. Once they are free to spy on you without respecting your rights as a citizen, you no longer have rights. Welcome to the very police state you suggest that the NSA is "saving you" from.

Cheers,
Bruce.

Netflix is awesome but it doesn't carry current network content. Hulu does for the most part (with CBS being a big exception).

I know most (all?) of this content is available online but I can't bring myself to go back to being tied to a schedule. The online content is often here today and gone tomorrow. Also, I really like all my content delivered by a box that's hooked directly to my TV.

As for the BBC stuff... (yawn). I can see all of it on Netflix without the commercials. If this cost Hulu any $$ I think someone saw them coming. Come to think of it, this brings up a question I never thought to ask: Is there anyone out there who subscribes to Hulu without subscribing to Netflix?

Cheers,
Bruce.

That sir, is a terrible thing to say about the guy who wrote COBOL!

Cheers,
Bruce.

I'm sure that this is non-sequitur, but I can't help it: The first thing that came to mind is: What about the banks?

I can't really see why the actions taken by this person's company are illegal or even immoral. At worse, it appears they may have misjudged (but even that assertion is only made with the full benefit of hindsight).

In the case of the banks, they knew what they were doing was against established business practices, was immoral, and was illegal in many respects. Further, they knew this to be clearly the case at the time!

So, I can't help asking again: What about the banks?????

No fine, however large will "hurt" a corporation. Even bankruptcy and dissolution will not hurt the corporation. In the worst case, those affected are most likely to be small stockholders and line workers without the benefit of golden parachutes.

If the CEOs and board members were given fines and jail, THAT would send a message.

Cheers,
Bruce.

Just to be clear:
I don't agree with what they did (on many levels). I'm just pointing out that this is exactly what they do.
See: http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

Cheers,
Bruce.

I'm not condoning what the NSA has done, but this is firmly within their mandate. Who they spy on and how may be completely secret. The fact that this is what they do is not.
From their Mission Statement:
The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations.

Cheers,
Bruce.

You would not be subject to random searches in Canada:
According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Cheers,
Bruce.

I tried to watch them...

I can't tell if they take themselves seriously or not?

Makes me ache for the days when the news was news and strictly separated from 'editorial' content...

... of course, I'm not sure those days ever really existed.

Honesty, between them, FOX, CNN and MSNBC... I actually watch the Daily Show

On the one hand, Ellison saying this sort of thing is completely consistent. So... not news.

On the other hand...
I think he may be right. Apple's mapping app. Need I say more?

Jobs may have been a been a dick, but with him Apple had a mission. Now, it seems like any other company. Dedicated to $$$ above all else and run by 'managers'.

I wasn't old enough to go through any drills, but I can tell you that the threat of nuclear annihilation was certainly real. My gut reaction to some of these comments is similar to yours. These folks don't 'get it' and don't have the education to realize what they're joking about. To be honest, my thought was more along the lines of: I doubt she'd have time to deliver any speech.

Speaking as a Canadian, the only thing more weird than that lady calling the cops is the cops arresting the kid and him facing 9 years in jail!

So there :p (na, na, nana, na!)

There is something almost breathtaking about the NYT article.
1. If I stole services like this, I wouldn't not have the stones to write about it anywhere, never mind the NYT.

2. The writer mentions that HBO is missing an opportunity because they don't supply some way for her to commiserate with other person (or persons) who are "sharing" her account!!!

This article isn't about whether HBO Go should be available to folks who don't subscribe to cable. It's about whether HBO (and Netflix etc) are going to try to catch folks for "sharing" accounts.

Seriously, we're not talking about starving people taking some bread for their family. We're talking about stealing money and jobs from others so you can watch TV.

Someone should fine the author of the article to get that point across. Last I checked, the NYT operates behind a paywall of sorts. That likely helps pay the person who penned this article. Can she not see the hypocrisy of her position?

WOW! Had to get that off my chest!

Cheers,
Bruce.

In the interests of fairness, I am deeply involved with the following website, so my views are obviously bias! Consider the interface at: www.mindports.com Basically, it is used to organize an arbitrary set of categories and sub-categories and sub-sub-categories etc. Each segment contains a brief text label. Once selected, a segment may expose an interface, perform an action etc. After reviewing the article, it occurs to me that we could place commands (or options) through-out a set of these categorical trees. The same command would appear "everywhere" it might reasonably be searched for by folks with different points of view and experience. The interface would allow folks to "find" their command rapidly no matter where it was placed. If we included a text search capability, we would also support die hard CLI lovers. What do you think? Cheers, Bruce.

Respectfully: I understand the idea you are getting at. It would be wonderful if computer scientists learned programming so they could see how things actually work. My problem with this theory is that it is absurd to think that anyone would learn anything "real" about programming by completing a couple of courses in university. As I recall one of my courses, we were to use the semester to build an ant colony simulation. By semester's end we were not even close to this goal. That inconvenient fact was not even mentioned as a potential problem in the "real world". I remember thinking that this type of approach explained a great deal of what was then (and to a large extent) still is wrong with the software industry. I promise I'm not a troll. I love programming etc., it's just that I was ruined for life because my first job was working for a consulting shop were we had to deliver working software on time and on budget. I was very young and green (I hadn't even returned to university to complete my degree yet) and have always believed as a consequence of my time there that software design should meet these criteria as much as possible. Cheers, Bruce.