Almost just passed you right by but I couldn't quite bring myself to do it. I thought you needed a little insight. I guess I would start off by suggesting that you simply just keep speaking freely and don't fret about folks that state that they'll defend your liberties. You'll know it when you see it. Indeed, there are a large number of folks that are sworn to do just that. Now it could be argued that that oath alone is trite, at least to some, but I'd venture a guess that many more take it seriously than not.
In short, make the oath to yourself for yourself and others if you can manage it. Then hope that you never need to step up but do know that if you do need to that you will not be standing alone.
"So what happens when copyright law has been so twisted by certain special interests that neither the authors/composers are benefiting, nor is the public benefiting?"
What the hell are you implying here? Because there are only a few bad cops that we not be allowed to record them at all? Are you fucking certifiably insane? So those people that, you know, loose out on truth and justice are merely casualties of the Rule of Law?
You want to be fair? Well that's bloody nice of you. I'm glad fair and nice provide such dependable and just outcomes in your little world.
Step right up and spin the Wheel of Faith where you too can trust that justice will be true, nice and fair - watch out for those 'gotcha' landings though! But you can always spin again! Step right up! You there sir, have a spin, first one's free for your lovely friend too.
I'm not certain that you have to "say" anything to be tracked, found, and monitored. Seems to me you've been unreasonably searched and this is a 4th Amendment violation against your person. A bonafide breach of your rights.
"They" need to get a warrant. If they can't get a warrant then they must stop being lazy and get more proof. If they can't get more proof then they must stop (being fucks). They must stop being facilitators of the American Deconstruction.
How could one possibly state that someone is "helping" another avoid being caught for the crime of speeding when the first someone would need to know, definitively, that the second person was actually speeding would they not?
Speech is communication, in any manner.
Flashing your lights while driving can mean a good number of different things. For example:
There is a speedtrap.
There is a parked cruiser.
There is debris in the road.
There is an accident ahead.
There are dangerous conditions ahead.
You left your coffee cup on your roof.
Your lights are out.
The first is my personal favorite. Speedtraps. I crested a hill on a freeway where the other side is, effectively, a blind until you're there. There was a line of cruisers marked and unmarked, there were a half-dozen pull-overs within a half mile and I was in a pack. The deceleration that occurred, whilst averaging 75+, was nothing short of dangerous. Being a defensive driver by nature, I hammered the gas into the passing lane from lane three of four. There were no hits but it was rather close. I got the ticket from that pack as a result.. yes it was a choice but the folks previously behind me had more of one as a result.
Not one mother fucker flashed lights and it was several miles between exits.
If someone makes a law preventing speech that can serve to protect my person than that law is unconstitutional. Speeding or not.
A person may simply not be aware they're going a bit fast and/or headed for danger - what's a friendly reminder to pay attention? Free speech that.
IMO: It is not a police officers right to have unimpeded access to money and it is the right of a civilian to try to prevent others from forfeiting that money - if they see fit to communicate. They should not face the prospect of a fine for communication.
You're not really with us are you, sir? Why should I do a) when I can do b) and both offer the same result?
The truth and reality of the situation is that if the show is over - so is your window. Embrace and adapt or chase and get slapped.
We already know your position is a horrendous uphill battle do we not? What are you battling for exactly? Money? Can't be you're loosing it. Customer loyalty.. yeah, no. Control - going, going ... shows over.
It would seem to me that my "entitlement" will beat your window and anything you have to offer to date. I am glad that you understand for understanding part of the problem can, at times, lead to a solution. You telling me what to do and how to do it is most definitely not the correct solution to your problem.
I can interpret this approach as a round-house kick on the First Amendment.
Encouraging, fostering, suggesting and imposing limits on open and easy connectivity to a fundamental pipeline of communication with [ and this is the relatively new and unique part ] *the world* could easily end up with the effect of disenfranchising a voice if not hundreds of thousands of them.
Basically you're stating the obvious in that the sky is wide open for people that have the desire and means to push the intricacies of semantics onto interpretations of the word negligence to the upper most limit of twisted logic (not entirely unlike frequent assault on some certain founding documents that come to mind) into the realm of creating and defining law where mere mortals simply can not reside.
So if somebody has somehow acquired access to a shell account, in some way shape or form, legal or otherwise, and the machine hosting said shell account is one of twenty nodes behind one address and the user downloads a copy of oh I don't know, somebodies picture of Einstein or something, that the provider of that NAT is not at fault and the "user" could sue the provider of the system or the provider of the picture?
The argument seems to be centering around the concept that a guy with a jewelery store leaves his door open but his counters are locked and a "thief" steps inside and just outside the door there is a newspaper stand, the kind that has a slot for the quarter basket for The Evening Post but the papers are stacked on an open rack, and he reaches outside the door and grabs a copy of the newspaper while standing inside the jewelers store (who is not responsible in any way for the open paper stand) and our "thief" opens the paper onto said locked counter top and proceeds to take a couple pictures of some articles. He then folds the paper up neatly and puts it back in the rack and leaves the store on his merry way to a lunch date.
And somebody wants to blame the jeweler for being negligent?
I thought people were supposed to harm people and cause injury as a result of negligence? That seems a proper definition. Charge 10 large because someone with some gumption and a pocket full has a better, self serving interpretation? If anything our jeweler is an accessory to negligence, and the actual fault of this "negligence" falls squarely on The Evening Post folks. And they didn't even loose a paper.
First making the content available is dragged through the courts with preposterous results (to date) and now making the Internet available is in line for more of the same. What do you think can reasonably be next? Oh, right, links, twitter, blackberry messaging and google.
The Internet is CHOCK FULL DONE with copies of "My Content" via illegitimate providers of *copies* or simply links to same and what do we have for choices for legitimate access to EVERYTHING otherwise easily and readily available all over the Internet (in again: CHOCK FULL DONE numbers)? Absolute and corrupt ASS - is what our options are. These guys are crying over spilled milk and they're the ones holding the damn jug and pouring it down the drain. You know what? I'll go milk my own damn cow thankee. 'iffin you try to grab my milk to pour down your drain.. we'll 'em er fightin' words right dare missy.
No, I don't think it would make any difference either especially given the current circumstances. That just makes it that much more of a shame. I was simply fishing for some small thread that could perhaps tie into existing case law around these types of notifications from systems connection related cases or hell even a "contents are hot" type of case.
All of my rambling can, basically, today at any rate, be summed up with the fact that all of these intrusions in the form of the threat of lawsuits and new laws, all of the direct and indirect threats on liberty, both real and perceived, are directly rooted in and around content providers that, quite simply, are not providing. This is an absolute travesty irrespective and regardless of current and "threatened" laws.
Liberty exists in your pocket too which is rather unfortunate in and of itself, so if one does not have the means to pay to defend it one must either submit or find other means. I definitely and unequivocally believe that no person should submit as a result of providing open connectivity. And that holds true for no matter what transpires as a result that connectivity.
And thanks for providing that initial extra clarification.|c
The rambling bit of a question can basically be summarized with:
Could a shorter leash be put on this dog if there existed a notification that, upon connection to a given open network, stated something to the tune of:
"
Welcome. Your activities and actions while connected to this network are your responsibility. You must use it for lawful activities only. Any unlawful or unauthorized usages are punishable to the furthest extent of the law.
"
Or would that simply make "furthest extent" more easily applied to the provider simply because the flat foot on the trail is frustrated and just decides to stop the hunt and arrest the holder of the last clue?
Sound good so far and is in line with my understanding of negligence as whole.
So, with your driving example (which I like because I like driving) how could one .. "charged" with negligence not prevail (providing that there were no blinking reduced limit notifications along the route etc.)? Am I to believe that I can be notified with a threat of a (valid) lawsuit by some third party that happens to have a weather report and a speed cam sporting a 1 under signature?
Taking your example further, my understanding, as it pertains to WIFI, is that the road crews (managers etc) would be the "responsible" party as they're allowing the driving to occur in inclement weather (or weather deemed inclement by said third party that is).
I have yet to come across any idea or valid reasoning that would encourage me to believe that by having an open WIFI I could be, truly, considered negligent under any scenario. That is: it either is or is not my car on the road .. and the WIFI *is* that road.
Perhaps an old school "MOTD" is in order? One that states "You are responsible for your actions on this network"? or some such?
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
Re: Protect your right to say it
In short, make the oath to yourself for yourself and others if you can manage it. Then hope that you never need to step up but do know that if you do need to that you will not be standing alone.
On the post: Righthaven Loses (Big Time) In Colorado As Well
Re: Re: Re:
Shit! Shit happens!
On the post: Another Day, Another Story Of Police Lying... Only To Be Found Out Due To Video Of The Incident
Re: Re: Re:
You want to be fair? Well that's bloody nice of you. I'm glad fair and nice provide such dependable and just outcomes in your little world.
Step right up and spin the Wheel of Faith where you too can trust that justice will be true, nice and fair - watch out for those 'gotcha' landings though! But you can always spin again! Step right up! You there sir, have a spin, first one's free for your lovely friend too.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: 4th Amendment
"They" need to get a warrant. If they can't get a warrant then they must stop being lazy and get more proof. If they can't get more proof then they must stop (being fucks). They must stop being facilitators of the American Deconstruction.
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Get Pulled Over For Flashing Your Lights To Warn Others Of Cops?
Re:
That's what I'm talking about right there. Communication. Awesome.
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Get Pulled Over For Flashing Your Lights To Warn Others Of Cops?
Re:
How could one possibly state that someone is "helping" another avoid being caught for the crime of speeding when the first someone would need to know, definitively, that the second person was actually speeding would they not?
Speech is communication, in any manner.
Flashing your lights while driving can mean a good number of different things. For example:
There is a speedtrap.
There is a parked cruiser.
There is debris in the road.
There is an accident ahead.
There are dangerous conditions ahead.
You left your coffee cup on your roof.
Your lights are out.
The first is my personal favorite. Speedtraps. I crested a hill on a freeway where the other side is, effectively, a blind until you're there. There was a line of cruisers marked and unmarked, there were a half-dozen pull-overs within a half mile and I was in a pack. The deceleration that occurred, whilst averaging 75+, was nothing short of dangerous. Being a defensive driver by nature, I hammered the gas into the passing lane from lane three of four. There were no hits but it was rather close. I got the ticket from that pack as a result.. yes it was a choice but the folks previously behind me had more of one as a result.
Not one mother fucker flashed lights and it was several miles between exits.
If someone makes a law preventing speech that can serve to protect my person than that law is unconstitutional. Speeding or not.
A person may simply not be aware they're going a bit fast and/or headed for danger - what's a friendly reminder to pay attention? Free speech that.
IMO: It is not a police officers right to have unimpeded access to money and it is the right of a civilian to try to prevent others from forfeiting that money - if they see fit to communicate. They should not face the prospect of a fine for communication.
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re: Re: the slow downward spiral
Pot, kettle. Black?
What is transparent is ignorance. Want to keep devising law that crushes me and my liberty? Fuck the pirates, we'll be wanting your head on a stick.
On the post: Famed Appeals Court Judge Worries That Allowing People To Record Police Might Mean That People Actually Record The Police
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
On the post: Famed Appeals Court Judge Worries That Allowing People To Record Police Might Mean That People Actually Record The Police
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
Try snowboarding - word on the street is it's easier anyway.
On the post: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Of Course: New Fox Delay Means More Unauthorized Downloads Of Fox Shows
Re: Re: Re:
You're not really with us are you, sir? Why should I do a) when I can do b) and both offer the same result?
The truth and reality of the situation is that if the show is over - so is your window. Embrace and adapt or chase and get slapped.
We already know your position is a horrendous uphill battle do we not? What are you battling for exactly? Money? Can't be you're loosing it. Customer loyalty.. yeah, no. Control - going, going ... shows over.
It would seem to me that my "entitlement" will beat your window and anything you have to offer to date. I am glad that you understand for understanding part of the problem can, at times, lead to a solution. You telling me what to do and how to do it is most definitely not the correct solution to your problem.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re:
Encouraging, fostering, suggesting and imposing limits on open and easy connectivity to a fundamental pipeline of communication with [ and this is the relatively new and unique part ] *the world* could easily end up with the effect of disenfranchising a voice if not hundreds of thousands of them.
Why must I authenticate to speak?
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is going to get interesting isn't it.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if somebody has somehow acquired access to a shell account, in some way shape or form, legal or otherwise, and the machine hosting said shell account is one of twenty nodes behind one address and the user downloads a copy of oh I don't know, somebodies picture of Einstein or something, that the provider of that NAT is not at fault and the "user" could sue the provider of the system or the provider of the picture?
Yeah.. lost.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And somebody wants to blame the jeweler for being negligent?
I thought people were supposed to harm people and cause injury as a result of negligence? That seems a proper definition. Charge 10 large because someone with some gumption and a pocket full has a better, self serving interpretation? If anything our jeweler is an accessory to negligence, and the actual fault of this "negligence" falls squarely on The Evening Post folks. And they didn't even loose a paper.
First making the content available is dragged through the courts with preposterous results (to date) and now making the Internet available is in line for more of the same. What do you think can reasonably be next? Oh, right, links, twitter, blackberry messaging and google.
The Internet is CHOCK FULL DONE with copies of "My Content" via illegitimate providers of *copies* or simply links to same and what do we have for choices for legitimate access to EVERYTHING otherwise easily and readily available all over the Internet (in again: CHOCK FULL DONE numbers)? Absolute and corrupt ASS - is what our options are. These guys are crying over spilled milk and they're the ones holding the damn jug and pouring it down the drain. You know what? I'll go milk my own damn cow thankee. 'iffin you try to grab my milk to pour down your drain.. we'll 'em er fightin' words right dare missy.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liberty exists in your pocket too which is rather unfortunate in and of itself, so if one does not have the means to pay to defend it one must either submit or find other means. I definitely and unequivocally believe that no person should submit as a result of providing open connectivity. And that holds true for no matter what transpires as a result that connectivity.
And thanks for providing that initial extra clarification.|c
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could a shorter leash be put on this dog if there existed a notification that, upon connection to a given open network, stated something to the tune of:
"
Welcome. Your activities and actions while connected to this network are your responsibility. You must use it for lawful activities only. Any unlawful or unauthorized usages are punishable to the furthest extent of the law.
"
Or would that simply make "furthest extent" more easily applied to the provider simply because the flat foot on the trail is frustrated and just decides to stop the hunt and arrest the holder of the last clue?
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, with your driving example (which I like because I like driving) how could one .. "charged" with negligence not prevail (providing that there were no blinking reduced limit notifications along the route etc.)? Am I to believe that I can be notified with a threat of a (valid) lawsuit by some third party that happens to have a weather report and a speed cam sporting a 1 under signature?
Taking your example further, my understanding, as it pertains to WIFI, is that the road crews (managers etc) would be the "responsible" party as they're allowing the driving to occur in inclement weather (or weather deemed inclement by said third party that is).
I have yet to come across any idea or valid reasoning that would encourage me to believe that by having an open WIFI I could be, truly, considered negligent under any scenario. That is: it either is or is not my car on the road .. and the WIFI *is* that road.
Perhaps an old school "MOTD" is in order? One that states "You are responsible for your actions on this network"? or some such?
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I ask with sincerity - in the hopes that I become more .... enlightened.. or worst case I feel I must counter
Next >>