Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Straight up money laundering no fucking about, be you Dictator, Gangland criminal, Corrupt politician, Bank of America is the bank for you, now with untraceable bitcoins and supercomputers to generate more
Same old, same old. Permanent damage, permanent denial of access. So when it comes to a comparison with a brick and mortar presence. Dumping a load of rubble onto their driveway, well, actually disappearing rubble, as it cleans itself up as soon as it stops. So it temporarily stops access of customers to the store and highlights the reason for the protest. So typically a minor fine, for their specific activity and not for associated activity. So in this case they didn't dump a truck full of self removing rubble, they chucked on another handful, that on it's own wouldn't be noticeable. Why the big who haa, a bunch of asshats want promotions so they have gone into a big promotional show to ramp up the nature of the activity and penalties so they can earn those promotions. Draw focus away from the NSA's by far worse activity, mass computer network attacks across the whole planet. Of course the is also the overall blatant bias in modern justice for major corporations and against the individual, instituted by corporations for their benefit. Overall well intentioned people who participated in a protest who are going to be publicly financially destroyed for daring to go against the profit interests of a major corporation. So no, zip, zero permanent harm to be repaid with total financial and social ruin, hmm, yeah that seems fair and balanced (oh look I made a Fox not-News pun ie when fair and balanced is anything but fair and balanced.)
The current governments plan is to obey the order of Fox not-News boss Rupert Murdoch. That is stop broadband. So first step, stop new FTTH services, so they are only carrying out existing contracted services. Next step FTN, well, they are not going to do it, quite simply they are going to spend the next three odd years talking about doing it and then of course just prior to the next election change their minds and go back to FTTH, they really truly promise (After setting is place as many obstructions as possible).
Just to muddy up the waters, they intend to buy the incumbents rotting copper network after renting the conduits in which it resides initial for running fibre optic and no of course for nothing, that purchase is just a quick back hander for, well, no one is telling. A glaring example of the mismanagement the guy they put in charge of the NBN was the douche nozzle who got fired for losing so many customers after raising the monthly charge by $10 and dropping the cap from 20GB to 3GB and then telling his customers he only raised the price by 20% and trying to force the continuation of existing contracts, all under the protection of the same political party that is now killing the NBN.
So FTN will consist of;
Discussing the FTN Tenders
Next Election - FTN sucks we promise to do FTTH.
As a bonus for Fox not-News corp the current government is also looking to destroy the public broadcaster the ABC http://www.abc.net.au/. Why does Rupert Murdoch hate broadband Fox not-News number one on cable and number 36 on the internet also Myspace as a glaring example of their inability to adapt to the internet. So Australia finally managed to get Fibre Optic Internet going only to have it killed by a corrupt government at the behest of a single corporation and months of the worst examples of biased news political coverage. JFC why haven't you locked up that bastard yet?
A perfect description for what they are trying to do, run a protection racket, a crime that blatantly goes against RICO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act as racketeering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering. So basically they create the problem, slowed traffic and then pretend to solve it, stop slowing the traffic and want to charge for it. Now you have a government rep publicly promoting blatant criminal activity.
I made it quite clear. The end user initiates the traffic, they make the request and the content creators fulfil that request. You should no full well, when it comes to computers and computer network, not just one request is made but the end users computer continually makes requests for additional data and confirms delivery until the end users request is fulfilled. It is pushed by the end users and pulled by the end user until transfer is complete. The content creators are not flooding the net with content, they are responding to specific requests.
Link to Original Source
Not as useless as bitching about it, kid.
Sounds about right. With all the MS employees looking to jump ship, I can't see why anyone who wants to hire a Windoze developer would spring for a ticket to interview a candidate from a different city.
And you completely missed his point.
People like you are the problem.
They're going to die a horrific, slow, and painful death. While I agree they brought it upon themselves, the picture of what they're likely to go through brings me no pleasure or satisfaction.
Neither of these analogies seem quite right to me.
If there are any morally legitimate uses for military weapons, you cannot say the working on weapons per se is automatically immoral. On the other hand, that doesn't make working on any weapon development program for any client morally neutral.
When Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK-47, the Soviets were busy trying to repel German invaders -- surely that was a legitimate goal. They needed a cheap, rugged, lethal weapon that could be easily manufactured in large numbers. These same properties that have caused to to proliferate into unstable regions of the world. In some countries it is cheaper to buy an AK-47 than a live chicken. Some have called it a "slow motion weapon of mass destruction."
If somebody had asked Kalashnikov "Design me the ideal weapon to arm a conscripted child-soldier," he'd have told them to get lost. He designed the weapon to liberate his homeland; and he always regretted seeing his inventions in the hands of terrorists. He remarked on one occasion that he'd rather have invented an improved lawn mower.
Clearly, the ethics of weapons engineering is complex. But complex is not the same as "morally neutral". Heisenberg made errors in his atom bomb calculations, leading him to believe that a bomb was not feasible in time to affect the course of the war one way or the other. If his calculations had shown the way to an easier, practical bomb much earlier, then he'd have faced the ethical problem that arming a regime such as the Nazis with such a weapon would be a bad thing.
Today people working on aerial drone warfare are faced with serious ethical questions. Yes, you can construct scenarios in which the drone does the work of a human piloted vehicle without exposing the operator to risk -- clearly that's a good thing if you believe the operator is fighting in a just war. But one of the tenets of just war theory is that killing people pointlessly is never moral. Suppose you believed (as many do) that the Obama administration's use of drones was self-defeating, that we'd never be able to kill more legitimate enemies than are recruited to to the cause by civilian "collateral damage". Working to supply *this* regime with *that* weapon would present a moral dilemma.
Here's a simple analogy that I think works. Selling someone a gun is morally neutral, if you know nothing about what they intend to do with a gun. But if you know for a fact someone is going to use that gun to committ robberies, then selling the gun becomes wrong. The point is that you can't make generalized decisions about weapons development in a vacuum. Circumstances matter. For example it is possible to believe that under the circumstances the Manhattan Project was justified, but believe that North Korean or Pakistani nuclear program is not, without necessarily stipulating that the United States has more rights to nuclear weapons than any other country. You just have to show the circumstances are different.
Of course, the genie can be put back in the bottle -- locked down devices can prevent code that hasn't been vetted to run, and on desktops, mandatory DRM stacks would ensure the laws are enforced regardless of borders.
No, sorry, it can't. There's currently enough technological excellence in other parts of the world that they can design and build unlocked general purpose computers for fairly cheap without U.S. involvement.
The only reason why people pay attention to U.S. laws is because of the strength of U.S. consumers. The U.S. spends and spends. It's a special market unto itself because of how much spending people do, and as a consequence, how competitive the landscape is for those consumer dollars. The money doesn't come from nowhere though. The U.S. has enormous amounts of natural resources to exploit, including a very low overall population density, a habitable climate, and a stable society seen practically nowhere else.
If it becomes more profitable to entirely ignore the U.S. market though, people will stop catering to the U.S. laws and regulations. This can be brought about in a multitude of ways, but one way that's already in progress is the loss of the middle class and thus the loss of total consumer spending power.
That'll be the only way things can return to sanity here; after economic intimidation from other countries.