The only thing that needs to be tightened maybe is consumer negligence laws that if a company knowingly does not allow reasonable and industry standard security policies they are absolutely liable for any and all problems that occur... including statutory fines of a % of revenue (equitable then)
This is all that needs to be done. Unfortunately, it makes corporations look bad (and punishes them), whereas the type of legislation currently proposed diverts the blame from same corporations (i.e. campaign contributors) and still makes legislators look good.
Nevermind that the current legislation won't solve the problem and will result in collateral damage; at least the corporate sponsors are safe from blame, and the representatives can say to their constituency: "Look, we're doing everything in our cyber-power to cyber-solve this cyber-problem!".
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
not really, the numbers can be used to say what your looking for, you dont agree with the 40%, so you rip apart the graph to interpret what you want, then you don't even use the correct numbers, are you slightly color blind mike?, not a snarky remark, was wondering
Ignoring the obvious spelling and grammar mistakes (which don't help to make your point, BTW), you criticize the OP for cherry picking (which is false, but anyway), then you cherry pick. Fail.
Dont Know/Refuse 6%
lets do math, those who admit to it, 2+4+8+26=40%
you 'could, could' (sic) also add the 6% who dont know or refused to answer, as a "possible" indication of guilt and claim 46% pirate software and not be technically wrong
You could add the 6% of "don't know" if you were being disingenuous. How many of the other 40% Weren't able to buy the product legally, or tried and then bought, or just plain weren't served by the market? Surveys suck at specific answers.
And yes, you would be technically wrong. And generally wrong. Let's just say: you are wrong.
It all depends on how the questions are put forth.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, AC?
but, who is being disingenuous here?
You are being disingenuous.
Only 14% of people said they pirated software any more than "rarely"," above rarely is Always, Mostly, Occasionally
so in other words, 14% of the people pirate the software at all times and 26% pirate rarely, adding together gives you......40% software pirates....
Non-sequitur. You make no sense here whatsoever. Take the cock out of your mouth and try again.
this is why i asked about the color blind, could also be a typo on your part as well, ""and only 6% said more than "occasionally"."" occasionally is 8%, DK/refuse is 6%
Now you like Mike? Make up your mind. Or are you schizophrenic?
"To say that 40% of people admitted to piracy is not technically inaccurate—it's just highly misleading in tone and tenor."" you try to cover yourself here, with your "not technically inaccurate"" bit, you admit it is NOT WRONG, but yet you still feel right claiming it is misleading????, the numbers are not misleading, you are steering people to see only what you wish them to see with your story
...and you finally lost it all. Good luck to you (and your therapist, he'll need it).