Since the issue was actually applications that were using pre-2005 versions of OpenSSL that didn't support SHA-2, the "grace period" here was effectively 10 years.
2,676 karma · joined April 2, 2012
This prevents a country from forcing somebody like Microsoft or Apple to give up their source code for "inspection" in order to access their market. It also helps to prevent States from demanding and acquiring encryption or other private keys (there's a separate section that also explicitly forbids mandating backdoors be added).
Not everything in the TPP is bad.
As much as we try to develop rules and norms to constrain and moderate behavior by countries in the international community, at the end of the day, "the strong [still] do as they can and the weak [still] suffer what they must".
And yes, you're right that the actions and intentions are pretty transparent, with just some uncertainty surrounding the extent (ie, what reasoning will the PRC ultimately use to justify its claims, as it's also been quite ambiguous about them).
The more direct link is potentially to the CCP's claim to legitimacy as the government of China. If they can't defend China's "historic" claims to territory then they could lose legitimacy in the eyes of an increasingly nationalistic public.
Development of the islands actually accelerated dramatically when the case was filed, and I suspect the PRC wanted to get the largest and most obvious work done before that case concludes, since, although the PRC doesn't recognize the court's jurisdiction, past cases where other countries have acted with similar disregard suggest the optics surrounding it still matters.[2]
[1] See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line
[2] For example: http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/caving-inter...
It looks like the stocks are down about 20% from their high, which isn't that unusual for a stock market (and probably is appropriate considering how much stocks went up this year).
With regard to the timeline, it takes a lot longer to negotiate terms with multiple actors, where a single sentence or word could be debated for days and months, than it takes to read and understand the effects of the final text.
# Executive Actions - Negotiation 1. 90 day notification to begin negotiations 2. Negotiations begin 3. Negotiations conclude 4. 180 day notification prior to signing agreement 5. 90 day notification of intention to sign agreement 6. 60 days prior to signing, release of agreement text (first 2 months) 7. 30 days after notification of intention to sign, submission of Advisory Committee Reports 8. Agreement signed (not law yet)
# Reporting and Mock Markup 9. 60 days after agreement is signed, list of required changes in law due 10. 105 days after agreement is signed, USITC report due 11. Mock markups (no time schedule) 12. 30 days prior to implementing legislation, final text submitted (3rd month)
# Congressional Consideration and Implementation 13. Implementing bill introduced in House and Senate (no timeline) 14. Within 45 days, House Ways and Means must report bill 15. Within 15 days, House must vote on bill 16. Within 15 days, Senate Finance Committee must report bill 17. Within 15 days, Senate must vote on bill 18. Bill signed into public law (no timeline) 19. President implements bill by proclamation (no deadline)
So the Bill can spend a MAXIMUM of 90 days in the House and Senate; however, prior to even getting there, the text of the bill must have been public for a MINIMUM of 90 days (which is like 4-5 months in Congress time).
So even at hyper speed, the text would be public for 3 months, and in reality at least 4 months. More likely, the text will be public for 6-8 months before it is passed.
Source: Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)
In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee.
Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly sensitive.
The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups (there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not currently well balanced).
And if it was so incredibly underpriced... why was it so underpriced?
Is this simply a temporary precautionary measure because of the initial JS DDOS, or has GitHub permanently taken those two repos down?
If it's the latter, then I'm really disappointed and it would seem the PRC was able to get what it wanted.
> At the meeting in Santa Clara County last month, the county supervisors voted 4 to 1 to authorize the purchase
How on Earth are our elected officials agreeing to such insane requirements? Our Democracy requires transparency to work, and that especially includes allowing oversight by our Legislative members and allowing them to communicate that oversight to their constituents.
It also makes me wonder how we can equate distance to time in a 1:1 ratio. If space is expanding exponentially, then it almost seems like the distance a photon can travel in a given time is decreasing (from the perspective of the observer). I'm probably just confusing myself though.
If every galaxy was observed in its present day state, then that conclusion would seem to be valid. However, when we're looking at a galaxy 5 billion light years from us, we're looking at it as it was 5 billion years ago (including the light shift).
Therefore, it seems at least plausible that expansion is slowing rather than accelerating, since galaxies were moving away faster the further back you go in time.
I'm sure the above can be explained, although it may require a lot more time/effort to refute than it took for me to make the argument, but could somebody with more training in the subject point out the flaw in my logic or explain why the expansionist interpretation fits better with observation?
I also lived in China for about 2.5 years (and not surrounded by foreigners) and in Taiwan for close to the same length of time. The classes I took at Tsinghua were taught in Chinese and I was usually the only or one of two non-Chinese citizens.
I've been to Chinese NGOs, on the set for the filming of CCTV news programs, and spoken to Government officials in China. For about a year I only had access to the Chinese web (国内).
So yes, I'm speaking from personal experience.
Conversely, it's beyond easy to find articles written in English, hosted on US servers and social media and news sites in the US that criticize the US.
So the parent's point seems to stand.
What is now required to restrict the numerous variations of civil forfeiture, considering the 4th and 6th amendments, despite their clarity, do not appear to be sufficient?
Is this something that can be remedied just with normal legislation, or are we now in need of a new constitutional amendment?
Moissanite doesn't really occur naturally on Earth though (although it is believed to form around carbon-rich stars).
I've personally seen social media posts with any mention of events like Tiananmen or political leaders blocked (often automatically by software), and a Chinese friend discovered she couldn't text the number '64' around June 4th (she was actually trying to send an address).
You can try it for yourself on a site like Renren (www.renren.com), just try posting something with the words 天安门 (Tiananmen), 习近平 （Xi Jinping, China's current President), or 周永康 (Zhou Yongkang, former PSC member).
The Chinese version of Skype (actually Skype, not a clone) even blocks words like 'fuck' (see: http://www.nartv.org/mirror/breachingtrust.pdf)
Seeing it happen twice now is a little disconcerting. It feels like Google is eschewing a responsibility it has to standards as one of the major browser vendors in favor of its own interests.
If CSS Regions are truly a problematic proposal, it should collectively be addressed now during the draft stage to either improve the standard or decide to abandon them.
For example, if you have a form without a submit button in IE 10, and a `<button>` element anywhere else on the page, IE will treat the <button> as the submit and "click" it for you rather than submit the form. If you don't have a `<button>` element though it will submit the form as expected.