I THOUGHT THIS WAS KIDDING SOGMLASG
CISPA - (Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act)
So I’ve been reading up on CISPA and here’s what I’ve found:
This has been claimed by some as the new SOPA, but after reading through the bill several times (why in the world do they put definitions at the end of a bill?) it has become clear that CISPA is a good bill indeed. It focuses mainly on cyber attacks intended to “degrade, disrupt, or destroy” systems or networks of the government and private businesses and sharing this information so that the government and businesses can better protect themselves. Vague wording on what is considered a cyber threat and a cyber attack may pose problems. However, even if websites like The Pirate Bay or file sharing programs were deemed a cyber threat neither the government nor businesses have the right to force shutdown. All they could really do is share information so as to better protect themselves from these websites. I need to read up more on the National Security Act of 1947 before I can really say the true implications of such a bill.
Questions I have that might be answered by reading the NSA of 1947:
According to the the bill a certified entity is someone/a business that:
possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and
is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.
Here is where things get a little tricky in my interpretation. In my understanding of this small businesses or growing businesses would probably just be thrown by the wayside, even if you have very important information to protect (I can think of a few businesses off the top of my head). How big does a business have to be in order to be included in this bill? (Is this only going to benefit the richest businesses while small businesses get the short end of the stick?)
Now, as for cyber threats themselves, cyber threat intelligence is any information regarding:
a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from-
(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.
The question I have in regards to this is: if someone is getting copyrighted information from a blog or a website, this includes all of the amazing gifs on Tumblr, then would that website become a target? How does one determine what a cyber threat really is, because they don’t define a cyber threat. Can the entity then become the target of an investigation? These are not lined out. The repercussions of finding something as a cyber threat are not fully outlined.
Many questions that I have.
Now, it should be noted that my concerns are just pure thought experiment, and overall I support CISPA. I think that businesses really do have to protect their information, however if deviant art, fan fiction, or other similar websites become the focus of investigation because they pose a “cyber threat” to businesses and their proprietary information then we really do have a huge problem on our hands. This bill needs to be interpreted as enabling companies and the government to better protect itself and its proprietary information, not to target and bring in people who are using creative license.
Here’s a link to the bill so you can read it yourself: CISPA
I want this! Not only because it’s Serenity, but because all I can think about are the bug jars in Skyrim as well.
Firefly + Skyrim = my own imagination
Gotta love the Personal Rocket Propelled Flying Mechanism!
When we run out of oil can we revert to prior technologies and do this? Because that would be BAMF!
This reminds me of the Tesla on Warehouse 13. So awesome!
Alie arrived at our 1st-grade classroom wearing a sweatshirt with a hood. I asked her to take off her hood, and she refused. I thought she was just being difficult and ignored it. After breakfast we got in line for art, and I noticed that she still had not removed her hood. When we arrived at the art room, I said: “Allie, I’m not playing. It’s time for art. The rule is no hoods or hats in school.”
She looked up with tears in her eyes and I realized there was something wrong. Her classmates went into the art room and we moved to the art storage area so her classmates wouldn’t hear our conversation. I softened my tone and asked her if she’d like to tell me what was wrong.
“My ponytail,” she cried.
“Can I see?” I asked.
She nodded and pulled down her hood. Allie’s braids had come undone overnight and there hadn’t been time to redo them in the morning, so they had to be put back in a ponytail. It was high up on the back of her head like those of many girls in our class, but I could see that to Allie it just felt wrong. With Allie’s permission, I took the elastic out and re-braided her hair so it could hang down.
“How’s that?” I asked.
She smiled. “Good,” she said and skipped off to join her friends in art.
‘Why Do You Look Like a Boy?’
Could not not reblog!
Post with 2 notes
There was a post made by a friend of mine on facebook. She went all militant atheist in her facebook post (which drives me crazy). She said that by including a bible quote in a friendly email, thanking her for her patronage, she was offended and that she would no longer give patronage to said business.
While normally I ignore her militant atheist posts I got involved saying that by refusing to give them her patronage she is directly harming their persons and their business, while simultaneously refusing to recognize their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Long story short, Philosophical Atheist who believes in a pluralistic society (me) trumps Militant Atheist through logical argument and scientific (aka: Socratic) methods. Here was the last post that I made:
I’ll end with this. (Tying everything together)
According to Wikipedia (yes it’s wikipedia, but you can find definitions similar to this one on more reputable websites) Political Pluralism is: “In democratic politics, pluralism is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. In this context it has normative connotations absent from its use to denote a theoretical standpoint. Unlike totalitarianism or particularism, pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation.”
John Rawls uses pluralism in his books “A Theory of Justice” and “Justice as Fairness” to note that there are many competing ideas on what constitutes morality, goodness, and appropriate beliefs, thus creating a pluralistic society. In the presence of this pluralistic society, which is inescapable (unless you like totalitarianism), we must work together to find the least common denominator. We must work to create laws that everyone can agree to live and abide by while still respecting everyone’s rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the right to life, and many other rights and liberties.
While you recognize the pluralistic state, by attempting to eradicate the use of bible verses in business, and other private places (because I assume it’s a private business that we are talking about in the first place), you are refusing to accommodate for the pluralistic society that you live within (and that you will always live in unless, like I said, you like totalitarianism). You are attempting to remove liberties that should be afforded everyone.
As well, because you have such a disdain for religion you attempt to remove yourself as far from religion as possible. Rather than seeing the similarities and using those as working points to help create a society that accommodates for such pluralism, you are creating factions that separate and create worse living conditions for those who do not agree with you (because they are not afforded the rights and liberties that everyone should be afforded).
My point about atheism being a belief is that there is much more in common between religion and atheism than most atheists are willing to believe. I would assume because of their incessant need to separate themselves from religion. If you view atheism as a belief structure similar to religion then you can begin to empathize and work together into “good-faith negotiations” that will lead to a society that accepts and accommodates for pluralism.
(sorry about the length, but it needed to be this long to make sense and get my point across)
I hope my point truly does get across. By vilifying religion and attempting to eradicate it you only make the world worse for those who hold a religious belief. You make the world worse off because people don’t agree with you and you clearly believe that the world would be a better place without them. (That’s literally what Hitler thought, the only difference is that you can convert a Christian to Atheism, while you can’t convert someone who is of Hebrew descent to another descent).
Sometimes I’m ashamed to be an Atheist with all these Militant Atheists around nowadays.
Fortune Teller - Early 1870’s
I’m making a steampunk fortune teller outfit seeing that I’ve been reading tarot cards for years. This is a great inspiration outfit.
Page 1 of 38