It's been well over a decade since the weaknesses of RC4 have been widely disseminated. No surprises here.
The summary fails to mention (anyone surprised?) that this is where the name comes from. Apparently the flaws have been known for 13 years.
But all the other "offenses" were speech and had those other "offenses" not been considered offenses due to free speech, this would have simply been a fight.
Were the other offenses actual "Free Speech" issues (i.e. he expressed an opinion that his producers and/or a BBC executive didn't agree with) or were they instances of verbally assaulting someone like he did this time?
"ISIS Seen to be Destabilizing Force in Yemen - You won't believe what happened next!"
FTFY
I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
Well, if you're going to play the Tyranny of the Minority card, let me counter by playing the Tyranny of small decisions card.
Cameras in every home would kill millions. Literally.
Sure, if you contract out the installation to the lowest bidder, I can imagine that there would be a few instances of cameras falling off their mounting and hitting people in the head, or maybe causing electrical fires. I doubt there would be millions of such incidents, though.
Is this really what Slashdot is coming to?
Coming to? Slashdot arrived here like 5 years ago.
I think we need laws stating that anyone who has ever worked for an industry, and their immediate families and their known business associates, is not allowed to work in any capacity for a regulating agency, and vice-versa.
The downside to this idea is that you would be left with pretty much only two groups of people available for a regulatory agency: people who don't know anything about the field that the agency is responsible for, and new graduates whose only knowledge of the field is from their time in college. The FCC needs people with telecommunications knowledge, the EPA needs ecologists and chemists, etc. If you disallow anyone who has worked in the industry, you aren't left with much.
So what's the right answer? Damned if I know.
Given that you need a certain base amount of income to live, depriving someone of 12 days of income is terribly regressive - someone living paycheck to paycheck may well not be able to eat for a while if lacking nearly 12 half-days of income, whereas someone being fined $50k or whatever because they make a few million a year will not miss it that much... though they may well decide that spending about $200k to support a candidate to run against the sheriff in that region is a worthwhile expense.
Even when Phase 2 is ???, there's still a Phase 1, so you might want to read a bit more carefully:
It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
