I'm not sure what I played into, but perhaps it just goes to prove that it really is a dog eat dog world. :)
Do not give the police your permission for anything, ever.
I meant literally, not "in spirit". Mr. Sirius ran in 2000, and I keep hoping that he'll run again.
"No, hacking implies that the system was not in your control, and was taken over nefariously or by other non legal means"
Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is what many people think "hacking" means now. I'm simply unwilling to stop fighting the battle against this corruption of the term. At least until we have a new term that can replace the traditional meaning of "hacking".
Here's an excellent essay about the tradition meaning of the word: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html
You're trying to inject logic into a well-established idiom like "dog eat dog". The idiom may not make literal sense (few idioms do), but that's what it is nonetheless.
The history of this idiom is particularly interesting and explains your observation of its biological inaccuracy:
Canis caninam non est is an old Latin proverb that translates to dog will not eat dog. The modern version, seen first in the 1930’s, is a play on the old one, suggesting that society had turned so vicious, that dog is now capable of eating dog.
Why are you assuming that manual control will be impossible?
That is "hacking" by all traditional definitions. I think what you meant to say was that no malware was used or access controls bypassed.
My problem with the TPP is not the free trade part (which the TPP does little to address, in my opinion). It's the corporate sovereignty part that makes it completely unacceptable to me.
"Twitter et al. should let ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups roam freely everywhere they see fit, leverage the power to broadcast their message, potentially to millions of people, all around the world, with each tweet, with each video, with each Facebook post,"
Twitter, as well as all the other private platforms, can do what it likes.
However, I am very opposed the idea that censoring propaganda, etc., is a good and desirable thing. It's the direct opposite of that.
If Twitter (or whoever) is shutting down accounts because they're abusive, consist of violent threats, etc., then I congratulate them.
If, however, they are shutting down accounts that don't do these things but are instead run by "terrorists" or are used for recruitment, propaganda, or any other protected speech, then I condemn them.
[F]rom an operational standpoint, it takes about two years to fully utilize and integrate a discovered vulnerability.
I hope this doesn't make it even less likely that we can talk R.U. Sirius into making another presidential run.
As long as Oracle still has money to pay lawyers, they will never stop.
What was misleading? Everything Craig Welch said was accurate and relevant.
Yes, the treaty was secret while being hammered out, and that's bad. But that's also the past and is only of academic interest.
Now, we can all read the thing -- and I can't find anything in it that is even remotely like "backdoor gun control". Can you?
"So do I need cable? Not really. It's just convenient for DVR functions."
Why not just buy a DVR?
I'm certain not against Bitcoin at all, but PayPal does have at least one advantage over it: if something goes wrong, you can theoretically sue PayPal.
It would be more likely that iRobot would sue, since "Scooba" is what they call their floor-mopping robots.
I like to drive, too.
I just have problems with the expense of owning and maintaining a machine that I don't use most of the day.
Re: Too confusing you say?
So much this!
The lack of mandatory registration makes the copyright system unworkable and unfair regardless of the specific copyright term lengths.
In my opinion, that was why they pushed so hard to remove the mandatory registration that we used to have.