An uprising is raging elsewhere. Loud shouting on a megaphone or on a supercharged speaker system keep ringing in my ears. Nuisance -- as in "noisy assailants" are just around the corner, deafening every passer-by or chanced riders that go by. I never had appreciated such moves. I am no fan. Protests are protests and will remain as they are unless suggestions or recommendations are voiced out rather than the worse-riddled situation that we are already in. To complain is an eye-opener to a seemingly naive and insensitive one. But, not until a solution is on the table, it will remain a complaint.
I highly regard those that are against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and brought their case before the court -- rather than ranting about it elsewhere. Lawyers, law-makers (and sometimes law-breakers) shall test by counter-testing the negative impression the law [that they wrote and agreed on] as seen by others. Arousing interest from all areas is good BUT, they have to be informed PROPERLY -- emphasis intended. Properly, we mean, within the bounds of the information that really exists in the provisions. Anything above and beyond that is misjudging the "freedom of speech".
Once again, the definition and implication of the word "freedom" is being challenged.
Hackers have unleashed their nuisances on some of the websites I'm keeping in store at a hosting server. Implicating the bill as part of their reasoning is plainly irresponsible. Making the point that the websites, and the server can be hacked is another thing all together. Anyhow, both sides of the coin has to be played in such a scenario -- to understand and take it a medicine that what they did is to send proof and taunt admins of their capabilities. How about shooting them in the head to make the point that a bullet travels so fast that it can break a skull? -- Anyone dare? (Oh, well... no pun intended. Just making a point).
Oh, mechanic operating on a heart bypass..
I highly regard those that are against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and brought their case before the court -- rather than ranting about it elsewhere. Lawyers, law-makers (and sometimes law-breakers) shall test by counter-testing the negative impression the law [that they wrote and agreed on] as seen by others. Arousing interest from all areas is good BUT, they have to be informed PROPERLY -- emphasis intended. Properly, we mean, within the bounds of the information that really exists in the provisions. Anything above and beyond that is misjudging the "freedom of speech".
Once again, the definition and implication of the word "freedom" is being challenged.
Hackers have unleashed their nuisances on some of the websites I'm keeping in store at a hosting server. Implicating the bill as part of their reasoning is plainly irresponsible. Making the point that the websites, and the server can be hacked is another thing all together. Anyhow, both sides of the coin has to be played in such a scenario -- to understand and take it a medicine that what they did is to send proof and taunt admins of their capabilities. How about shooting them in the head to make the point that a bullet travels so fast that it can break a skull? -- Anyone dare? (Oh, well... no pun intended. Just making a point).
Oh, mechanic operating on a heart bypass..
