I think you're seriously overselling how great "hardware designers" have done.
While fundamentally being hooked up to the internet doesn't make a difference as far as securing packet delivery goes, it does make a difference as far as security goes. Hooking up to the internet vastly increases the pool of people that can try to access it, which is a huge security issue.
Ya, that's not how "common law" systems work. A judge might be able to say whatever they want, but they cannot enforce it. This is why we have checks and balances in place. This is just a symptom of a different problem: No system is ever better than those put in place to manage it. You can make all the rules you want, but if those who manage enforcing the rules refuse to follow them, all your rules are worth less than the paper they were written on.
Fortunately you'd be wrong. Since you already own a legal version and downloading the cracked version from someone else doesn't involve you breaking the DRM, it's just format shifting which is 100% legal. Ain't copyright law great?
How everyone looks at these tests really gets to me.
The test didn't fail. That's not the problem. It tested positive for exactly what it was supposed to test positive for: sugar.
That's the problem with these tests. They are being run by people who have no idea how chemical tests work based on lies from those who created them.
As someone who has studied chemistry, let me make this very clear: it is impossible to make any kind of chemical test that can positively identify a substance in only one test. A chemical lab is going to run the substance through several tests each meant to rule out other substances in order to firmly prove that there's only one possible substance it could be.
These tests need to be banned outright. At most they should only be used so the officer on the scene can tell if it's worth sending the substance in for a real lab test or not. Any arrest made based on any single test on the side of the road should be seen as obviously unconstitutional. There's no way that kind of test can give you enough information to establish probable cause.
Traditional understanding is actually part of the problem
Cosmo is not remotely pornographic by any traditional understanding.
Actually, traditional understanding of pornography put men or women walking around in long sleeved "underwear" as pornography. So Cosmo absolutely does qualify under some traditional definitions of it.
This of course only serves to expose the problem with trying to legislate it. Whose definition do you accept? I personally feel that complete nudity should not be on public display, but then there are many that would argue against me on that.
Actually, that one is taken care of by many of those who would be in favor of this kind of law. It's not recognized as revealed scripture by the LDS faith. Which kind of makes sense, considering the Bible was put together by a bunch of self appointed leaders of Christianity long after the last trace of any Apostle had been killed off. They were bound to get some things wrong.
"if punishments were usual, nobody would work to avoid them"
Where on earth did you get this twisted line of logic from? A whip across my back hurts just as much no matter how many times I've had it applied.
It's this exact kind of uncaring attitude that leads people to repeat their crimes and increases crime in general. Someone doing something wrong does not make it right to toss them to the dogs. The point of ANY punishment short of capital should always be to help the person want to change.
Any punishment that doesn't have that as it's goal is just torture for the pleasure of the punisher.
Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
You didn't read one word of the article, did you?
So if I read you right, you think the law forces you to let someone force their way into your home and say whatever they want to whether you want to hear it or not. At least that's the best conclusion I can get over your idea what it means when speech is "Constitutionally protected".
The Constitution prevents the government from restricting speech. It does not and CANNOT be made to prevent individuals from restricting speech within their own spaces. This makes perfect sense and has always been the position of TD.
That's a rather childishly simplistic comparison that doesn't hold an ounce of water when you actually question it.
You're comparing taking the rights of someone away AFTER they have broken the law with making exercising your constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech breaking the law.
Best news of the month! So nice to see both this liar shut down in court and hopefully a huge relief for you. Thank you for fighting to set this needed precedent on his ridiculous claims!
Re: Re: Re: Per usual, more than a bit of context left out
You act like bot detection is a solved problem. That is sooooo far from fact.
In fact, one of the most damning facts that proves that is simply not true is that most bot detection today REQUIRES HUMAN INTERACTION. Good luck automating that so called "solved problem".
The fact that you want to slap ridiculous, unrealistic expectations on them does not mean they built something "beyond their capabilities". It means you're being unrealistic and ridiculous.
Since cell phones vary so much in size both by brand and over time, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that anything smaller than the largest cell phones anyone has ever used must be ok. I mean if they're going to be vague in their rules it's only fair that I get to be vague in my obedience to them!
You clearly don't understand the Borg. They weren't prejudiced against those who weren't members, they were INSISTING that you join them! How much more inclusive can you possibly be?
I can agree with a platform that leaves moderation up to the public using it, but shaming and mocking people for speech you hate is never the right way to approach it. It will never get them to change for one. They'll just dig in deeper whether they're wrong or not. The goal should be to help them see your point of view of what they said. Breeding hatred is only going to make the problem worse on both sides.
If they are in the job for life, they can do whatever the heck they want with no care whatsoever to what the law says. Neither system is perfect, but at least one has a way built into it to get rid of those who choose not to follow the law.
...So the fact that we have the power to fire our Judges is the reason we have some bad ones? I'm trying really really hard but I just can't figure out how to make point A connect to point B in that sentence.
Hanlon's razor is not a statement of foolishness. It is a recognition that always assuming the person intended to cause harm is not only usually wrong, it only serves to breed hatred which is guaranteed to make everything worse.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter why the person/politician chose to write a horrible bill. All that matters is if they will listen to people who try to explain why that bill is terrible. If the answer is no, then they need to be voted out. We can vote against them without letting ourselves give into hatred towards them.
I would much rather assume someone is generally a good person and just didn't understand the issues very well and be proven wrong then assume the opposite and find out I was right. That doesn't mean I have to let the person keep hurting others with their lack of understanding, it just means I don't have to hate them for it.
This inane narrative always fascinates me. Nothing about this has anything to do with "culture". Culture is created by people, not businesses.
And even then your entire playthrough about the garbage we supposedly accept from what we buy is so hilarious its like you've never bought anything in America ever.
On the post: Vulnerability Found In Amazon Key, Again Showing How Dumber Tech Is Often The Smarter Option
Re: Re: Re: IOT Locks
While fundamentally being hooked up to the internet doesn't make a difference as far as securing packet delivery goes, it does make a difference as far as security goes. Hooking up to the internet vastly increases the pool of people that can try to access it, which is a huge security issue.
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?
It's not a "bogus" charge, either.
I'm sorry, what would you call an illegal arrest that the sheriff can be charged criminally for going through with?
On the post: Judge Ignores Congress, Pretends SOPA Exists, Orders Site Blocking Of Sci-Hub
Re: Common Law
This is just a symptom of a different problem: No system is ever better than those put in place to manage it. You can make all the rules you want, but if those who manage enforcing the rules refuse to follow them, all your rules are worth less than the paper they were written on.
On the post: With Denuvo Broken, Ubisoft Doubles Up On DRM for Assasin's Creed Origin, Tanking Everyone's Computers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
The test didn't fail. That's not the problem. It tested positive for exactly what it was supposed to test positive for: sugar.
That's the problem with these tests. They are being run by people who have no idea how chemical tests work based on lies from those who created them.
As someone who has studied chemistry, let me make this very clear: it is impossible to make any kind of chemical test that can positively identify a substance in only one test. A chemical lab is going to run the substance through several tests each meant to rule out other substances in order to firmly prove that there's only one possible substance it could be.
These tests need to be banned outright. At most they should only be used so the officer on the scene can tell if it's worth sending the substance in for a real lab test or not. Any arrest made based on any single test on the side of the road should be seen as obviously unconstitutional. There's no way that kind of test can give you enough information to establish probable cause.
On the post: Utah Senator Wants To Revive The State's 'Porn Czar' Office To Combat The Threat Of Women's Magazines
Traditional understanding is actually part of the problem
Cosmo is not remotely pornographic by any traditional understanding.
Actually, traditional understanding of pornography put men or women walking around in long sleeved "underwear" as pornography. So Cosmo absolutely does qualify under some traditional definitions of it.
This of course only serves to expose the problem with trying to legislate it. Whose definition do you accept? I personally feel that complete nudity should not be on public display, but then there are many that would argue against me on that.
On the post: Utah Senator Wants To Revive The State's 'Porn Czar' Office To Combat The Threat Of Women's Magazines
Re:
Which kind of makes sense, considering the Bible was put together by a bunch of self appointed leaders of Christianity long after the last trace of any Apostle had been killed off. They were bound to get some things wrong.
On the post: More Prisons Banning In-Person Visits, Adding To Securus Tech's Pile Of Cash
Re: "Cruel and Unusual"
Where on earth did you get this twisted line of logic from? A whip across my back hurts just as much no matter how many times I've had it applied.
It's this exact kind of uncaring attitude that leads people to repeat their crimes and increases crime in general. Someone doing something wrong does not make it right to toss them to the dogs. The point of ANY punishment short of capital should always be to help the person want to change.
Any punishment that doesn't have that as it's goal is just torture for the pleasure of the punisher.
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
So if I read you right, you think the law forces you to let someone force their way into your home and say whatever they want to whether you want to hear it or not. At least that's the best conclusion I can get over your idea what it means when speech is "Constitutionally protected".
The Constitution prevents the government from restricting speech. It does not and CANNOT be made to prevent individuals from restricting speech within their own spaces. This makes perfect sense and has always been the position of TD.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Google is the outlier
I can't get over this line. So the bulk of your dataset are the outliers??? And these two points that are WAY outside the norm ARE the norm?
On the post: It Doesn't Matter How Much Of An Asshole You Think Someone Is, That's No Excuse To DMCA
Re: Re:
You're comparing taking the rights of someone away AFTER they have broken the law with making exercising your constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech breaking the law.
Don't be silly.
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Congratulations!
On the post: The Scale Of Moderating Facebook: It Turns Off 1 Million Accounts Every Single Day
Re: Re: Re: Per usual, more than a bit of context left out
In fact, one of the most damning facts that proves that is simply not true is that most bot detection today REQUIRES HUMAN INTERACTION. Good luck automating that so called "solved problem".
The fact that you want to slap ridiculous, unrealistic expectations on them does not mean they built something "beyond their capabilities". It means you're being unrealistic and ridiculous.
On the post: TSA To Require Separate Scanning Of Electronics 'Bigger Than Cellphone'
They said larger than a cell phone
http://www.knowyourmobile.com/nokia/nokia-3310/19848/history-mobile-phones-1973-2008-handsets-m ade-it-all-happen
Isn't history fun?
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: Re: Re: Of course it's racist!
On the post: Facebook 'Hate Speech' Rules Protect Races And Sexes -- So, Yes, White Men Are Going To Be 'Protected'
Re:
It will never get them to change for one. They'll just dig in deeper whether they're wrong or not. The goal should be to help them see your point of view of what they said. Breeding hatred is only going to make the problem worse on both sides.
On the post: Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Court Order To Scrub Web Of Her Boyfriend-Beating Past
Re: Re: Re: America
Neither system is perfect, but at least one has a way built into it to get rid of those who choose not to follow the law.
On the post: Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Court Order To Scrub Web Of Her Boyfriend-Beating Past
Re: America
On the post: Could You Design A Worse Patent Reform Bill Than The STRONGER Patent Act By Senator Coons? Don't Think So
Re: Re:
At the end of the day it doesn't matter why the person/politician chose to write a horrible bill. All that matters is if they will listen to people who try to explain why that bill is terrible. If the answer is no, then they need to be voted out. We can vote against them without letting ourselves give into hatred towards them.
I would much rather assume someone is generally a good person and just didn't understand the issues very well and be proven wrong then assume the opposite and find out I was right. That doesn't mean I have to let the person keep hurting others with their lack of understanding, it just means I don't have to hate them for it.
On the post: Three Thoughts On EU's $2.7 Billion Antitrust Google Fine
Re: The thing is, it's not America
And even then your entire playthrough about the garbage we supposedly accept from what we buy is so hilarious its like you've never bought anything in America ever.
Next >>