Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Misunderstanding Peering Agreements (Score 2) 319

We won't forget this.

Haha, that's what everyone said about the separating of DVD and streaming services, which was an effective price hike.

But in all seriousness, there was nothing special about the deal, it was a peering agreement, which is STANDARD procedure for EVERYONE. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea how the system works and has worked since the Internet originally went commercial. Not... One... Clue... This is how the Internet as most everyone knows it has always, always, worked.

For those who can't grasp this concept, here's an easy reference article: http://blog.streamingmedia.com...

Comment: Who said this was limited to the US government? (Score 1) 260

by Kamiza Ikioi (#40256673) Attached to: Flame Malware Authors Hit Self-Destruct

The Congress did not give the Executive branch this power by any sort of law that I can recall

Who said this was limited to the US government? You are talking about against US citizens by the US government, a very select case. Several countries can spy on their own citizens "by law", China for instance. It's quite legal there. So, that immediately would contradict your statement "It's an illegal activity, whether done by governments or by the mob." Because it's just not true on its face.

We are not aware which country did this, unlike Stuxnet. So let's look at Stuxnet, which was created by the US and Israel. The CIA operates under similar legality to operate on foreign agents and powers. Why does Stuxnet differ from an agent sneaking in and sabotaging a machine?

In what way is Stuxnet, targetted at Iran, crimeware under US law. Sometimes laws give explicit powers. Other times, powers are assumed unless explicitly prohibited.

Something is not simply illegal where the law is silent.

So, assuming Stuxnet was an operation carried out by the US government against the Iran government, and assuming that it operated as intended, namely that it never left Iranian facilities... show me the law, the exact law, that makes it illegal.

You are sort of blandly making these assumptions of legality... without anything legal backing. If you were to take the makers of Stuxnet to court, what law would you go to SCOTUS charging them with if you were Iran?

You can't just throw "not done under the rule of law" out there. That's some libertarian, "government can't do anything unless we spell it out in exact detail to them, with no wiggle room", jargon. And, you may very well be a libertarian and believe that. Unfortunately for that argument, neither the US government nor the courts nor China nor Russia nor many other countries with cyberwar programs take such a view on the law.

That leaves it as thinking is should be illegal, but that's opinion, not law.

Comment: Goverment Crimeware? (Score 1) 260

by Kamiza Ikioi (#40255757) Attached to: Flame Malware Authors Hit Self-Destruct

And whether governments do it, or the RBN, it's still crimeware.

I think that's taking a fast and loose definition of "crime", isn't it? That would make tanks, bombs, planes, and even spy tech... all crimetech.

Spyware is taken, and Warware may not roll off the tongue as easy. But calling government cyberwar activities Crimeware just feeds the nutjob conspiracy theorists, as though no government has no legitimate self interest in spying or conducting activities against other countries.

As someone against the taking of human life, I find government cyberwar methods to be the best thing to happen to humanity since the bullet proof vest!

Comment: Madness! (Score 1) 101

by Kamiza Ikioi (#40004199) Attached to: UK To Give Peer-Reviewed Science Libel Protection

So, the main institution responsible for scientific groupthink is going to be the arbiter of what's libel and what isn't? Brilliant!

So, you're saying that scientists will be responsible for determining what science is? Madness! Next, they'll have doctors telling us what medicine is! And mathematicians telling us what math is!

Comment: The Three Bears of Punishment (Score 3, Informative) 334

by Kamiza Ikioi (#39795517) Attached to: Childhood Stress Leaves Genetic Scars

Mama Bear: To those parents that are completely anti-spanking... hey, good luck with that. Technically, a timeout is a short period of solitary confinement, which itself deemed torture, cruel, and unusual... So before you go overboard and compare a measured spanking to beating a child... just remember, you still torture them with solitary confinement, so what makes you parent of the year, eh? ;) I'm sure a few of these velvet glovers will turn out wonderful kids. I'm also sure they will put their child so high on a pedestal to scar their unique little snowflakes in worse ways.

Papa Bear: On the other hand, if a parent ever has to hit, leave a mark, turn something red, or use something other than the palm of their own hand, they're going to far. To that kind of parent: You are bigger, stronger, and in control. For you to use a hanger, belt, stick, wooden spoon, knuckes or other hard part of the body, or anything else on a child is abuse! You're beating your child to quench your anger, not teach a lesson.

Baby Bear: Appropriate measure and balance. My son will be 4 this summer. I'm adamant about teaching him not to grab from the counter, but let's say he goes to grab a knife. I will slap the back of his hand or his bottom (after taking the knife from him calmly, of course). This isn't time to "negotiate". My son permanently injuring himself will receive a swift sting somewhere. He's a small child. He's smart, but appealing to his intellect is completely wrong when it comes to immediate danger. He doesn't run into traffic in a parking lot. He doesn't grab at the stove. He doesn't put coins in his mouth. The key is being consistent, and rare. I think the more you spank, and the harder you spank, work against you. I don't want my child resenting me, or thinking I'm out to hurt him. If he does, then I've failed. But if he gets hit by a car, I've definitely failed!

Very rarely do I ever have to spank for another reason, and that's usually if he refuses to stand in timeout. It's measured, not harsh (I am rougher when he and I are rough housing and playing... so its more embarrassing than anything), and I give him lots of warnings. If I say what the consequence will be, I always follow up. Parents that threaten punishment, and don't follow through do their kids a huge injustice just as if they continually promised ice cream for dessert, and never deliver on that either. Parents that punish without explanation are causing more problems than if they did nothing.

Any form of punishment is followed by having him explain what he did that caused the punishment ("I got a time out because I didn't listen when you told me to put up my toys."), followed by me adding explanations for why what he did was wrong, followed by a big hug, wiping of any tears, a kiss on the cheek, and telling him to go up to anyone he was bad to and apologize.

My son, is healthy, happy, knows he's loved, and is a very sweet and polite boy. He's not mean to animals or other kids. Most of the time, I've found talking quietly and firmly to my son ends all that tantrum business while shopping.

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke

Working...