Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How is this new? (Score 1) 201

by zAPPzAPP (#47438901) Attached to: Texas Town Turns To Treated Sewage For Drinking Water

Usually towns located at a river will pipe their (hopefully treated) sewage into that river.
Towns downstream will often get at least part of their drinking water from groundwater taken near the river (the river guarantees a steady groundwater level), treat it again, then use it.

This adds some cubics of soil as additional filter, but is basicly the same thing.

Really, unless the town is lucky to get first access to some mountain's stream, the drinking water will always be at least part 'treated sewage'.

Comment: Re:It's accomplices all the way down! (Score 2) 255

by zAPPzAPP (#47378327) Attached to: Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice

Probably because it is not a precedence based jurisdiction, so this case has no concern for them. They can relax, wait and battle when/if they are actually target of a lawsuit.
Of course this decission may be an indicator of how the law is to be interpreted, but that is a problem with the law itself and winnning this case for the guy will change nothing about that for the ISPs.

Comment: Another case of 'same, but with a computer' (Score 5, Insightful) 216

by zAPPzAPP (#47170301) Attached to: Life Sentences For Serious Cyberattacks Proposed In Britain

The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.

The second part 'threat to the country's national security' on the other hand is such a broad term, it is basicly a blank check where they can fill in any sentence for any crime as they wish.

So I guess it's really about the second part, and the first part is only there to give it more weight: 'HACKERS MIGHT KILL YOU!'

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken