Typical knee jerk reaction from the over-reaching government. What they should do, instead, is do a public service program to educate people on what the potential problems with the loss of or inappropriate use of their personal information is. Then allow the consumer to decide what to do about the problem themselves. Perhaps they care about the issue and will avoid sites that abuse their personal information. Or perhaps they don't care and will not waste their time on the issue. Either way this is bound to be tangibly and intangibly cheaper for the general populace than additional control exerted by the government.

RTS

Just sayin...

Your comment would be correct if you had complete and utter control over every aspect of everything you do. Clearly, this is an impossibility.

That's because you're doing it wrong. IT done properly, with change management, proper testing, business deadlines, purchasing, project deadlines, budgeting cycles, politics, etc. etc. can be very stressful and difficult. People who think its easy are likely not doing these things, or not doing them properly. Flying by the seat of your pants can be pretty easy most of the time, but most of the time it also gets you in trouble.

The problem with your response is that you assume that all of these things occured without ID, therefore they are proof in themselves. [This is clearly not the way to prove anything. Its the chicken and the egg scenario all over again.] Your assesment may be entirely accurrate but what are your facts to backup the statement? Run down your list of proof the same way a mathemetician can prove his equations.

I am completly open to being shown the error of my beliefs. But statistically, it seems exceptionally improbable that these things could have occured 100% without intervention by some force or intelligence. I am thinking in terms of the something like the lottery - 180,000,000 to 1 odds of winning... and then winning twice? and then three times? what about 50 times in a row? These are the statistics i am talking of. On a cellular level I can see how you can get into billions and trillions of cells mutating into more and more advanced life, and all of this occurring in the span of the earth's existance...but where is the spark that starts it all? How does that spark occur? and in what conditions. Clearly, once we figure this out and are able to replicate it then this will no longer be theory. Until we do then it IS all just theory, cannot be proven, and we should neither condemn nor demean those who believe otherwise. I respect the beliefs of others. I don't judge them for those beliefs. But don't judge me for questioning those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with asking Why.

This is an intelligent and insightful response. I would mod it so if i could.

Thanks for the additional information. Looking at the drake equation now. ;)
br Its good to see an intelligent response instead of "Because I said so!"

Let me review your data for this. If it is accurate my eyes will be opened and i will believe whole-heartedly.

Smart people are so dismissive of people who do not see or believe the way they do. Instead of being able to fully explain thier facts they demean those that question. It is a very small, sad, "smart" person who behaves this way. Try being a little more open minded and try to consider why you believe the way you do, and be able to explain it to those who question instead of demeaning them. You may find that you are able to sway them to your view. Demeaning them will almost certainly not do so.

Open your eyes, indeed.

maybe you should take a minute to explain it to me then, mr. smartypants. your comment is useless otherwise.

What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?
What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?
What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life to further mutate into different domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally, species?
What are the odds of such enourmous variance occurring naturally?
What span of years would it take for such evolution to arise, given the proper environment?
Please account for all of this while explaining the further likelihood of the variance in species color, gender, etc. while also considering that the evolutionary train would have to be unbroken at any point for a speoies to evolve to its current state. This means, over and over and over and over this genetic mutation would have to occur without a species dying off over hundreds of millions, if not billions of years.

Now, statistically, can you explain the odds in all of this occurring over the course of the earth's existance?

And finally, how do we know these statistics are 100% accurate without having other worlds where we have life that arose in a similar manner that we can look at and test to be certain our theory is correct? I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

All that data routed to the wrong place accidentally... hmmm sounds like a perfect excuse to me - for intelligence gathering. If it passes through their routers, they have the data.

SCOTUS does not necessarily have to cite precedence or case law when they are interpreting something that is in the Constitution. Thats the benefit to them of being the supreme arbiter in the land of what is the law and what is not the law. Where other courts in the land must use case law to justify, SCOTUS can look at the law itself and determine what it means.

Your examples refer to property that is not owned by the company - just because its on their property doesn't give them rights over it. The article and this discussion pertains to company owned property.

oops! Accesible instead of accisible.