Petty
They should use Disaster Area's rig. The one they controlled from a spaceship off-planet.
3320 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
"We've invaded your country, trashed your infrastructure, stolen your natural resources, put a load of corrupt thugs in to govern you, and are now charging you for letting our companies make a vast profit by 'repairing' the damage we did. But we killed rather fewer of you than usual. So BE GRATEFUL YOU SCUM!"
"Economic predators, including nation-states, are blatantly stealing business secrets and innovation from private companies. This cybersecurity bill goes a long way in helping American businesses better protect their networks and their intellectual property,"
This would be from the country which has for decades had listening posts in the UK to eavesdrop on any and all communications? Which copies the hard drives from the computers of anyone foolish enough to visit it? Which demands the details of all bank transfers made by European firms?
Letting the police shut down web sites at whim assumes that the police will not misuse their powers.
The police have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. They will not restrain themselves, they will grab every possible extension of their powers that they can, legitimate or not. They have proved this over and over again.
If there's a major disaster that brings down communications, where better to keep the health records of the disaster victims than on a different continent?
And it's interesting that they specifically state that if a company has any presence whatever in the US then US law overrides local law in any other country they operate in. I wonder what the US reaction would be if the reverse applied?
What is the EU position on the clear statement that almost any EU personal data held in the EU can be grabbed at will by the US despite all EU privacy laws? So it doesn't even have the pathetic 'protection' of data that's deliberately transferred to the US under a privacy agreement.
I note also that this means that any company with a US presence can be legally required to hand over its trade secrets for distribution to its US rivals.
If they are convinced that the system is "100% safe" then they must obviously have had an external security audit done, or it would be ludicrous to make such a comment.
Could they please provide a pointer to the report they commissioned from Ross Anderson, confirming that his students have not yet been able to stroll through the security system like a hot knife through butter?
No. The speeds don't add up like that. This is the heart of special relativity.
Speed is distance travelled per time. Both distance and time change when you travel near light speed. When you allow for this, the total speed always comes out less than light speed.
This sounds weird, but it is not fiddling the figures - it's the way the universe works.
It really does happen. The big particle accelerators have to allow for these effects, and they see exactly this happening just as the theory predicts.
"the speed of light is the same in *all* frames of reference" - yes, that's exactly the point.
From the mirror's point of view, the speed it measures light at is the same, so in its own frame of reference it is *not* travelling near the speed of light.
So there's no reason at all for those virtual photons to act any differently than for a mirror "at rest" - the mirror thinks it is itself at rest.
"if one could accelerate a mirror very quickly to near the speed of light, the mirror would radiate light"
Relativity says there is no absolute frame of reference for motion, no fixed frame to measure speed, only motion relative to other things.
So what is this "near the speed of light" relative to? It can't be speed relative to the vacuum, that would establish a fixed frame.
Physics should be the same to all observers, whatever their velocity. So I don't see how they are working this, something must be missing in the description.
"Watchdog director Muhammad Talib Doger " will find his name being used as an obscenity as a substitute for the banned words. As will any politician who supports this. Are they then going to ban their own names?
The whole idea is ludicrous - do they seriously think they can keep up with new terms and creative misspellings?
"I do not believe that we need new explicit authorities to conduct offensive operations of any kind,"
So he doesn't need any authorisation from the country where the person being attacked is living. He doesn't need to comply with their laws as to what evidence is required before assuming someone is guilty.
As usual US law trumps everyone else, even in other countries.
So he's told them both not to post messages claiming to be the other, and thinks that makes it OK?
They don't just get access to the partner's data, they also get full access to the personal and private data of other people who are friends of the partner and have given them access.
What crime have those friends committed, that their private information should be handed out to another person? What happens if that information release actively damages them - will the judge compensate them?
These would be the same americans that a few years ago were panicking every time they saw any white powder in case it might be anthrax?
The americans who complain to the pilot if they see someone on a plane who looks like an arab?
The americans who check halloween sweets for embedded razor blades?
And they're now asking strangers to send viruses to infect their kids.
3) You might have a photo of a personal memory that you want to share with friends by uploading it - but *NOT* want that personal memory to be used to back a news story or an advertising campaign so that some stranger can make money out of it.
Isn't it amazing how copyright rights of big companies mean the law must be changed to trample the rights of individuals in favour of the big companies, while copyright rights of individuals mean the law must be changed to trample the rights of individuals in favour of the big companies,
"Proactive approach"
"suspected of offering illegally copied music"
So when a provider is notified of a suspicion about someone they should check them carefully?
What a load of cobblers. Whoever claimed that must have know perfectly well that it's nonsense.
The provider will cut them off immediately on notification, with no further evidence whatsoever. Why should they spend money on investigating whether it's safe to take a risk, when they can easily avoid both the risk and the expense?
This will have a massive chilling effect on legitimate sites - and is presumably deliberately intended to do that.