This is what terrifies me. Not that my house will be searched, or that I'm interesting to the government in any way. (Some nerdy middle-class dork with a wife and kids living in a little midwest town?) It's that this is the kind of governmental overstepping that can lead to armed conflicts. I don't want to see violence in the middle-east. I don't want to see it anywhere else, either. And I don't want to see it when I walk out of my door to mow the lawn. Please, let's not start the ball rolling.
Diane Feinstein was also one of the loudest voices for gun control. She has advocated a complete gun ban. (Nice way to uphold the Constitution, huh?)
Add in her advocation of total military populace surveilance and the increasing over-reach of Attourneys General, along with an ever-increasing police state and reduction in civil liberties, and a cynical person might think there was a conspiracy to turn the US into a industrio-military-led oligarcy which ruled it's populace by fear and force.
Of course, I'm certain nothing could be farther from the truth...
Naw, keep on hatin'. Apple is still a troll. who else would mold their case to match the shape of internal components, PATENT it, and SUE their own supplier? (Yeah, PCBs are rectangular) "Rounded corners" (rolls eyes)
A few years ago, I took a course on XHTML. It was all the rage:all the cool kids were doing it, and you could put a special "XHTML" logo from the W3C if your site passed muster. Within the first 2 weeks, I realized that I would never use this piece of garbage. It was case-sensitive for no good reason, and the keywords were all lower-case where previous convention called for upper-case. There were many other problems as well, but heck if I can remember them. I just remember the new feature set: nothing. For all of the recoding and ugliness, I got zilch for using it (excepting the logo, of course.) Lo and behold, no one else used it, either. The specification is essentially dead. So, if they expect HTML5.1 DRM to take hold, they better come up with some additional kick-a$$ features, or it will end up in the same dust-bin as XHTML, regardless of it's status as a "standard."
I've seen this arms race. I've never seen the establishment win. I have seen them chase the hackers until they give up. And we don't need a full-on browser. All it takes is a browser plugin to hijack the the datastream from the plugin and save it elsewhere. If they want security, they should write their own damn browser! Of course, HTML 5.1 has all the hallmarks of XHTML: complicated and limiting with no discernable value to coders or end-users.
I don't see how a legal document can be considered under copyright. Will the judge and jury be required to purchase a license to read this document if it goes to court? Is there really creative expression in it, or is it simply a list of requirements? Very strange...
I never understood why Linux coders were so adamant about not using Mono, when Microsoft had a "promise not to sue" pasted all over the place. Now I understand: they can just give whatever patent to IV to sue. Easily. They already have a relationship.
What I don't understand about Linux coders is that they don't have the same trepidation about Java, when Oracle has already sued over Java technology. If anyone knows, feel free to explain...
Saying this is great, but if the "intelligence" agencies can't identify which threats are real, then what good are they?
In other words, rather than trying to blame them for failures, I'm saying that the current strategies employed are flawed, and this is the evidence.
If you can't tell the difference between a needle and a straw of hay, stop building haystacks!