All politicians are That Guy. All successful politicians, that is.Mr. Grey said:craddoke said:He lost the Democratic primary here in Connecticut and started his own party (it has since repudiated him - which has got to hurt since it had his name in its title). He supposedly caucuses with Democrats but campaigned for McCain and can always be relied upon to support knee-jerk conservative responses (both regarding national security and "morals").Mr. Grey said:I could have sworn Lieberman was an Independent Democrat. So wouldn't he be left wing? Or is that the problem? I haven't paid much attention with politics, they've increasingly made me jaded and depressed.
Fortunately, his chances of being reelected at this point are about the same as BP being named the this year's most environmentally friendly corporation.So he's basically That Guy. I don't even want to know how long he's been in office, it's bad enough Michele Bachmann is in there.molesgallus said:He's whatever the lobbyists want him to be...Mr. Grey said:I could have sworn Lieberman was an Independent Democrat. So wouldn't he be left wing? Or is that the problem? I haven't paid much attention with politics, they've increasingly made me jaded and depressed.craddoke said:Oh, Lieberman! What zany right-wing paranoid fear-mongering will you bring us next? And, more importantly, what civil liberties crushing solution will you propose?
Gut miranda rights? Check. Deny accused criminals other basic rights? Check. Pave the way for a government seizure of the internet? Check.
I don't think they could "turn off" the internet in other countries though... I mean, that sounds like something worth going to war over. Figure every modern company uses the internet as a means of communication, and the internet is turned off for... oh, eight hours, a usual work shift.ChromeAlchemist said:I like how the fines are basically a way of keeping the angle that they still have the right to refuse it. Regardless, this is a joke, and I just can't imagine that they don't understand how many people this would affect!Flying-Emu said:Neither can we stand idly by and allow this sort of insult to occur. Talk about cock-slapping the free economy. Requiring companies to partake in this? And I'm guessing they'll have to pay some sort of dividend FOR this "information sharing." Sounds like the govvies are trying to rake up some more cash to pour into their stupid fuckin' war.Andy Chalk said:"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins [http://collins.senate.gov/public/].
Nah, it'd bring all international trade and the world's banks to their knees (in the case of the banks, again). I can't imagine any kind of threat that would warrant bringing the entire globe's commerce to a grinding, shuddering (and indefinite) halt.Lizmichi said:Yay someone reads. Someone reads a good book too. Yea I hope this is just a farce so I don't have to start making sighs and find some way to DC and protest this. Cause I will.Grouchy Imp said:1984.Lizmichi said:Oh my good lord. I can see it now, so we'll lose words in our language and they'll be able to listen to us threw our TVs. If anyone gets what I'm referencing I will be surprised.
Although this sounds like another knee-jerk reactionary scare story to me.
Aye, if they're going to shut down the entire world's Internet, they can at least have the decency to call it "cyber-11/9".joshuaayt said:Does the word cyber-9/11 piss anyone else off?
Any proof of that? If you don't have any proof, then i claim that the Internet was "techincally invented" by Russians.GrinningManiac said:OT: Is this just for the US? Cus I'm questioning why they would have any right to turn off British internet, considering A) They HAVE no right and B) We technically invented it
If someone decided to hack into the Pentagon Network System (or whatever the hell it's called...) then I would find it a very effective way to stop it.TheRightToArmBears said:Whaaaaaaaaaat?
This is insane. I cannot think of any event that is even remotely feasible that would require the entire internet to be turned off.
Yea and that's the last thing anyone needs right now. I still don't get how we can have an "internet 9/11."Grouchy Imp said:Nah, it'd bring all international trade and the world's banks to their knees (in the case of the banks, again). I can't imagine any kind of threat that would warrant bringing the entire globe's commerce to a grinding, shuddering (and indefinite) halt.Lizmichi said:Yay someone reads. Someone reads a good book too. Yea I hope this is just a farce so I don't have to start making sighs and find some way to DC and protest this. Cause I will.Grouchy Imp said:1984.Lizmichi said:Oh my good lord. I can see it now, so we'll lose words in our language and they'll be able to listen to us threw our TVs. If anyone gets what I'm referencing I will be surprised.
Although this sounds like another knee-jerk reactionary scare story to me.
Surely the snart move would be to not have the Pentagon system connected to the wider internet?halo3rulzer said:If someone decided to hack into the Pentagon Network System (or whatever the hell it's called...) then I would find it a very effective way to stop it.TheRightToArmBears said:Whaaaaaaaaaat?
This is insane. I cannot think of any event that is even remotely feasible that would require the entire internet to be turned off.
The echo of a thousand cyber-cries uttered at the same time.Woodsey said:Oh yeah?
Well the US government can suck my cock.
I think (read: it did) 1984 made reference to both of those things.Lizmichi said:Oh my good lord. I can see it now, so we'll lose words in our language and they'll be able to listen to us threw our TVs. If anyone gets what I'm referencing I will be surprised.
Oh, he's one of those...JourneyThroughHell said:Since I'm Russian, the only way I know of him is this.Woodsey said:Not a clue who he is (I'm British), but if that's the case then I retract my cock-sucking statement and issue it directly to Joe Lieberman.JourneyThroughHell said:That's not the US government.Woodsey said:Oh yeah?
Well the US government can suck my cock.
That's Joe Lieberman.
I doubt anyone takes the guy seriously.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/475/475503p1.html
Yeah.
indeed...maybe include all the earths leader to also have one so when they all press it the internet shuts downBoba Frag said:Damn right!Woodsey said:Oh yeah?
Well the US government can suck my cock.
How amazingly self-centred of them... That would disrupt internet commerce the world over!
I'm all for increased levels of security online... but that's just going way too far.
Kollega said:Any proof of that? If you don't have any proof, then i claim that the Internet was "techincally invented" by Russians.GrinningManiac said:OT: Is this just for the US? Cus I'm questioning why they would have any right to turn off British internet, considering A) They HAVE no right and B) We technically invented it
OT: the US government won't approve of that bill, for many many many reasons. They may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. It may sound odd, but even stupidity has it's limits.
On 6 August 1991, CERN, a pan European organization for particle research, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. An early popular web browser was ViolaWWW, patterned after HyperCard and built using the X Window System. It was eventually replaced in popularity by the Mosaic web browser. In 1993, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois released version 1.0 of Mosaic, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic, technical Internet. By 1996 usage of the word Internet had become commonplace, and consequently, so had its use as a synecdoche in reference to the World Wide Web.