Oh yeah, I also cut and pasted the verification link from the borked email (how many users would think to look at the raw source?), and healthcare.gov refused to verify using their own code they sent. WTF?
When is the government going to learn to fully test their sites before going public? I heard the user side of healthcare.gov is operational, so I went to check it out this morning. I create an account, get sent a verification email. I open the email using SeaMonkey's email client, and it's blank. I look at the raw source of the email, and the message content has a "Base64 decode error". Nowhere on the site is an option to resend, only a phone number to call (f*ck that). On a hunch, I do something I shouldn't be able to do, and create a second account with the same email address. It works (?!), and I receive a second email...with the same issue. Anyhow... I bring it up, because I go to check out this hot new site, and it's down with an internal server error. LOL
Rights can neither be granted, nor taken away. Basic rights are something that no one can give or take; they're more like ideas than actual things. Privileges are what most people think of today when they talk about rights. Guns are a good example: Let's say the Government finally decides citizens can't own pistols (for whatever reason). What's to stop me from owning one? I could own an unregistered pistol the rest of my life. Now, if I get caught with it, all kinds of nasty things may happen to me. Technically, my right to bear arms wouldn't have been infringed... I acted on my right. However, all sorts of other privileges may be taken away. But my basic human rights would still be there. If I wanted to arm myself, I could probably think of something to grab or use for protection, even if it's not a projectile weapon; I'd still be free to speak my mind however I choose; the list goes on. I may be doing all that from a jail cell, having lost most of my privileges of citizenship, but there's really not a lot government can do to actually "take away" rights except to make laws that scare you enough to not *exercise* those rights.
I believe the wallet itself was encrypted. I could be wrong -- I didn't pay much attention to the story at the time (Silk Road busted -- surprise, and Yet Another BitCoin Story), but I'm fairly certain I remember something about the founder having encrypted his wallet file. I'll go back and re-read the stories later, but my main point was that I find it interesting the government confiscates a bunch of bitcoins that are worth a decent penny, and now suddenly they're thinking of allowing bitcoin donations.
I find it very interesting that this news comes after the FBI shut down Silk Road, and obtained a rather large wallet. Anyone hear any news of that wallet being decrypted? If not, anyone know who's working on it? In any case, I'll be watching to see who ends up with a rather large amount of bitcoin donations...
Interesting, but I'd like to see articles where someone doing this has won cases with the utility company. Apparently, according to the following URL, the utility company can, and has, detected this directly. http://www.industrytap.com/electromagnetic-harvesters-free-lunch-or-theft/1805
There are rather effective ways to blacklist IP's that abuse ports. I think there's even a list out there. However, I've been running a BBS server for several years now, and I've rarely felt the need to do anything about any hammering on my ports. The one time I actually had to block anyone with IP rules was no matter what I did, I couldn't get Google to stop crawling FTP day and night. But other than that, I'll occasionally get one or two connects at a time sporadically thoughout the day from all over the world... not only on 23, but 22, 21, 80, you name it. As a parent poster commented, many older services still use 23, and blocking that port at the ISP level would put the hurt on end users to connect. I can certainly think of a few ways around it on older software, but it's nothing the casual end user would want to go through just to use a piece of software. If they're going to block more ports, they need to set up some flags for special businesses or industries. For instance, critical infrastructure businesses could have 23 blocked by default... but as a home user, I expect to pay for the full use of my Internet, not a crippled one. It boggles my mind that there are so many ISP's out there blocking 25; I'm fortunate to have an ISP that does not do that, and I'm able to receive my own email. I think everyone should be able to have that choice.
His recommendation at the bottom is for ISP's to start blocking port 23. I certainly hope that doesn't become a "solution". Many people like to host their own servers, and these default port blocks just make life horrible. The BBS hobby scene uses 23 quite a bit and would take a hit. Blocking ports is not an answer, and in fact I'd like to see the practice banned.
hhawk writes "I've written about the future of TV since the early 1990's. I was inspired by Google's Chromecast, which I feel will help accelerate the demise of Broadcast TV. Models like YouTube, which provide free distribution and monetization is the classic "free" TV business model adapted for IP transport. I blog how at $35 the Chromecast makes model viable for 10's of millions of TV screens."
Unfortunately, until it's challenged and while the executive decides to follow through, it's law. We can petition the government for redress of our grievances, but that takes time and money, both of which are in short supply today. Or we can vote, but then again, the general public are too lazy and -- again -- don't have the time to follow and keep track of who's doing what to vote 'em out. It's a conundrum on how we're going to course correct things. Me? If I had the money, I'd run a huge nation wide compaign that features all the crazy stories of the last few years. Basically it'd be "Fuck the Dems, Fuck the Reps, Vote in the Libertarians". If within four years every single elected official in the federal government were voted out, along with ALL of BOTH parties...imagine the change. Yes, we can!
Gary Perkins writes "From the article: "The mayor of a small northeastern Pennsylvania city that wants to crack down on immigrants in the country illegally says a new federal appeals court ruling won't stop his town from trying to implement the proposed regulations.""
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Have you read the Egyptian Constitution? I'm not surprised they didn't last long. One look at the Wikipedia article, which is just an outline of it, and I had enough.
I'm not rationalizing or dismissing anything, I'm simply making the point that this is what governments have been doing for the last couple thousand years. The last several hundred they've gotten better at it. Intelligence services were set up so that when military leaders need to take some actions, they have someone to turn to who has ready information at a moment's notice. A leader has someone to turn to when your ally has been accused of really bad things, when in fact nothing occurred. It's always been a rather nasty "industry", and was particularly gruesome in the Cold War years, but I don't see it going away. It's a part of the modern government now all across the world.
Actually, I think it's a good thing we're keeping tabs, because allegiances do change. Better to keep our guard up rather than let it down. This is what we pay them for. We're allies, working towards common goals, but NOT the same nation, and we'd damn sure want to keep these intelligence channels open in case something that's unthinkable now comes around tomorrow.
I agree with everything you just wrote. Ideally, I'd like to see the government reduced to the point we need no income tax. Some amount of taxation is required in order to fund any government, but it need not be income tax. Fees for governmental services and licenses, import/export taxes, and what have you. It worked for the first hundred years, no reason it can't work again. Let the states shoulder the burdens again, I say, and return from a large nation state to a nation of states.