I always find it amusing that people who aren't competent enough to figure out how to use the "reply to this" link are often the same ones who make these type of comments.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisprudence varies regarding seizures based on defamation/obscenity v. copyright
I agree with you that they seized the domain name to prevent access to the server. That was the whole point, wasn't it? ;)
Right. It's not like the owner of the server can't get a new domain name and put the contents of the server back on the internet. That's just impossible. Great plan ICE. That'll show 'em who's boss.
The smell of weed coming from your car when the cops open the window is probably cause to check your car for drugs (and maybe even weapons). You are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are only operating on probable cause. That is all that is required to make a warrant work.
The errors are, at best, issues related to trying to explain non-standard technology in terms to satisfy a warrant. There really isn't much else there. Underlying it all, the warrant is valid on it's face.
You're analogy is good, but let me fix it for you.
Say the officers think they smell weed coming from your car in a crowded parking lot. They claim probable cause and search your vehicle. After finding nothing, they have your car impounded and move on to the car next to yours and do the same thing, over and over agian, sometimes finding drugs, but usually not until all the cars in the parking lot are now impounded. See the difference?
Not really. It is nowhere near realism in any way. In real life, you don't run through an alley killing every badguy with an AK47 on your way without getting hurt. You would probably get killed pretty quickly.
ArmA2, however, is a simulation game.
"Nuh-uh, CoD rulz; ArmA2 sux!"
This is the type of comment I would imagine would follow if this was a video game site, or any site where a large percentage of the viewers gave a crap one way or the other. But it's not. And most of us don't.
If you have a small niggling issue with the source article, I'd suggest going there to leave your irrelevant comment.
I'm simply not flying,... it's not actually much faster to fly domestically than to drive/take the train/take the bus anyway...
Wish I had that option, but I live in Alaska and have to travel to the "lower 48" for business a few times a year. Driving is not an option as it takes about 4 hours to fly to Seattle, and about 2 days to drive there.
Let me spell it out for you: you essentially said that any woman who is on her third husband has a questionable frame of mind. Perhaps you would apply the same warped logic to a man with three wives.
I only was talking about this woman, but I can see how you can make the inference that my statements apply to everyone who's been in three failed marriages, and I'd say that yes I do believe if you've been in three failed marriages, you're probably either not that stable, have something deeply wrong with you, or are a lousy judge of character. If you or anyone else takes offense to that view, I don't care.
Well I was annoyed and the choice was to either call you sexist or stupid, I thought it fitting to make an uninformed assumption.
And here I thought we were getting along so well. *sigh*
Don't worry, I won't cry about "personal attacks" the way some around here do. Especially since you were able to word it so well.
Saying 'maybe' isn't a get out clause, you're still suggesting a possibility. Suggesting that a kid may be neglected while their parents are having sex is pretty much the same as accusing the parents of negligence. If they weren't negligent then the possibility wouldn't be there.
Suggesting a possibility is much different than expressing a certainty.
Are you saying there is no possibility for neglect in this household? I'd say based on the mother's behavior, it's a strong possibility. Just speculation on my part, and only my opinion. If you think she's a saint, or somewhere in between, that's fine.
Hey if you want to spread around the details of your sex life to complete strangers on the internet, that's your perogative.
And telling me I should stay off the internet is pretty condescending. That's like me saying, if you can't tell I was joking with you, you should stay off the internet.
Wow. So I'm neglecting my kid every time my husband and I take a nooner, huh?
Wow. Why do you and vivaelamor take what I say and enter hyperbole mode? Notice how I say "may be." Based off the details in the article I'm going to go on a limb and say non of these people will be up for parent of the year. Is it so difficult to imagine that she might have her ex-husband over for a nooner while her current husband is at work? Or leave her kid unattended while she heads to a motel to meet her ex? Of course I'm speculating, but considering the type of behavior and judgement she's exhibited, it doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Obviously it does to you, and that's fine.
I'm unsure why me being British would explain my views on this matter, I don't think many of my countryfolk would consider me typical in most respects. Regardless, I wasn't asking which people think is more important but why they think that. I think privacy is more important because short of a partner not taking precautions then infidelity is unlikely to harm anything more than my feelings, whereas an invasion of privacy may harm my autonomy.
Let's see if I can keep my formatting straight this time.
I'm merely pointing out that European attitudes towards sex are much more relaxed than here in the States. Anyway, there a couple of reasons I feel spousal infidelity is worse than spousal privacy violations. First, even if the cheater is careful, there is no guarantee they won't contract an STD and pass it on to their unsuspecting spouse. Second, I see a privacy violation of this sort to be a minor breach of trust, whereas infidelity is a major violation. Subjective to be sure, but if I marry someone, I trust them and if I trust them, I won't have much, if anything, that needs to be private. My wife has my computer, smartphone, and email passwords. If you can't trust your spouse, then you're either shady, insecure, or a spook, IMHO. Communication being the foundation of a healthy relationship, etc., etc.
I presume you know that none of her husbands ever cheated or married more than once. Otherwise your comment seems to rely on a presumption that the woman is worse than any of the men, despite one of them allegedly abusing her. I hope you can agree, at least, that physical violence of any sort is a whole lot worse than any sort of infidelity. She may not be innocent but if you're to assume the worst of her then I might presume that you're just being sexist.
You presume too much. I don't know the details of her three husbands and their track record on fidelity. I'm not making any presumptions about them; I'm merely looking at the facts at hand which are: married three times unsuccessfully, cheated on husband #3 with husband #2 who was charged with spousal abuse. Based on these details, I drew the conclusion that some, if not most, of the blame for her failed relationships probably falls on her.
I honestly don't know why you're implying that I'm condoning spousal abuse, or a sexist, from what I said. I said nothing about who was "worse." I said she was the common denominator in three failed marriages and that she wasn't stable. How you managed to twist my words in your mind to make is seem I was assigning value to this "Jerry Springer" cast is beyond me.
Why is being unfaithful automatically worse than invasion of privacy? Why do you presume that she put the child at risk? Why does this earn her the label crazy bioch? From my perspective his actions seem crazier than hers, however positive the intent.
Really!? Maybe our views are different because you're on the other side of the pond from me, but I can honestly say I'd much rather my wife snoop through my computer than sleep with her ex.
Now lets talk about the fact that the woman in this article is now finished with husband #3. What's the common denominator in all her marriages? Her. That should tell you something about how stable she is. Nevermind the fact she's cheating on her current husband with an abusive former husband. Is that something normal, sane, stable people do? I think not. If you can't see that, then we likely won't find any common ground on this issue.
Even if he did, I don't see how her sex life affects her son.
You don't see? Then you're not thinking this through, because unless you have the answers to some very important questions, you should be able to see how her sex life affects her son.
Where is the child while his mom is banging his former stepdad? Is he in the same room/domicile as his abusive step father? If so, he's potentially in danger. If not, he may be neglected and/or abandoned, which is definitely affecting her son.
My understanding is that netflicks was smart enough to set up a really good deal with the copyright holders because the copyright holders didn't understand the potential behind netflicks and didn't think they would do much with it and now that they understand how big web streaming video is going to be, they aren't to make the same sort of deal with anyone else and everyone else is basically screwed.
Except... most of the major studios have blocked Netflix from renting out new releases for 28 days, and the majority of movies availiable for instant streaming are older and/or flops. So Hollywood has not really done Netflix (and their millions of subscribers) any favors either. Basically we're all screwed, unless we download the movies via bittorrent.
Same building, same group of friends, common goals.
What's your point? That the Pirate Party is out to ensure the freedom of information? How is that a bad thing? What nefarious activities do you think they are up to?
You're all full of vague assertions but in reality you say nothing. So please do so silently from now on, unless you actually have something meaningful to bring to the conversation.
On the post: Yes, The Legal & Technical Errors In Homeland Security's Domain Seizure Affidavit Do Matter
Re:
I always find it amusing that people who aren't competent enough to figure out how to use the "reply to this" link are often the same ones who make these type of comments.
On the post: Yes, The Legal & Technical Errors In Homeland Security's Domain Seizure Affidavit Do Matter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisprudence varies regarding seizures based on defamation/obscenity v. copyright
Right. It's not like the owner of the server can't get a new domain name and put the contents of the server back on the internet. That's just impossible. Great plan ICE. That'll show 'em who's boss.
On the post: Yes, The Legal & Technical Errors In Homeland Security's Domain Seizure Affidavit Do Matter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well if they are so convinced then I'm sure they won't mind you posting quotes of their opinions and their names.
Post them right here:
And then if you do, he'll want you to stand on one leg and recite the pledge of alegence backwards.
On the post: Yes, The Legal & Technical Errors In Homeland Security's Domain Seizure Affidavit Do Matter
Really? That surprises you?
On the post: Yes, The Legal & Technical Errors In Homeland Security's Domain Seizure Affidavit Do Matter
Re:
The errors are, at best, issues related to trying to explain non-standard technology in terms to satisfy a warrant. There really isn't much else there. Underlying it all, the warrant is valid on it's face.
You're analogy is good, but let me fix it for you.
Say the officers think they smell weed coming from your car in a crowded parking lot. They claim probable cause and search your vehicle. After finding nothing, they have your car impounded and move on to the car next to yours and do the same thing, over and over agian, sometimes finding drugs, but usually not until all the cars in the parking lot are now impounded. See the difference?
On the post: Has The Video Game Industry Surpassed The Military In Driving The Next Wave Of Technological Change?
Re:
Not really. It is nowhere near realism in any way. In real life, you don't run through an alley killing every badguy with an AK47 on your way without getting hurt. You would probably get killed pretty quickly.
ArmA2, however, is a simulation game.
"Nuh-uh, CoD rulz; ArmA2 sux!"
This is the type of comment I would imagine would follow if this was a video game site, or any site where a large percentage of the viewers gave a crap one way or the other. But it's not. And most of us don't.
If you have a small niggling issue with the source article, I'd suggest going there to leave your irrelevant comment.
On the post: TSA Claims Naked Scanners Are Safe, But Exaggerated How They Make Sure That's True
Re: Not flying
Wish I had that option, but I live in Alaska and have to travel to the "lower 48" for business a few times a year. Driving is not an option as it takes about 4 hours to fly to Seattle, and about 2 days to drive there.
On the post: TSA Claims Naked Scanners Are Safe, But Exaggerated How They Make Sure That's True
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only was talking about this woman, but I can see how you can make the inference that my statements apply to everyone who's been in three failed marriages, and I'd say that yes I do believe if you've been in three failed marriages, you're probably either not that stable, have something deeply wrong with you, or are a lousy judge of character. If you or anyone else takes offense to that view, I don't care.
Well I was annoyed and the choice was to either call you sexist or stupid, I thought it fitting to make an uninformed assumption.
And here I thought we were getting along so well. *sigh*
Don't worry, I won't cry about "personal attacks" the way some around here do. Especially since you were able to word it so well.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suggesting a possibility is much different than expressing a certainty.
Are you saying there is no possibility for neglect in this household? I'd say based on the mother's behavior, it's a strong possibility. Just speculation on my part, and only my opinion. If you think she's a saint, or somewhere in between, that's fine.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And telling me I should stay off the internet is pretty condescending. That's like me saying, if you can't tell I was joking with you, you should stay off the internet.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Why do you and vivaelamor take what I say and enter hyperbole mode? Notice how I say "may be." Based off the details in the article I'm going to go on a limb and say non of these people will be up for parent of the year. Is it so difficult to imagine that she might have her ex-husband over for a nooner while her current husband is at work? Or leave her kid unattended while she heads to a motel to meet her ex? Of course I'm speculating, but considering the type of behavior and judgement she's exhibited, it doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Obviously it does to you, and that's fine.
BTW, that was TMI Rose. :P
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see if I can keep my formatting straight this time.
I'm merely pointing out that European attitudes towards sex are much more relaxed than here in the States. Anyway, there a couple of reasons I feel spousal infidelity is worse than spousal privacy violations. First, even if the cheater is careful, there is no guarantee they won't contract an STD and pass it on to their unsuspecting spouse. Second, I see a privacy violation of this sort to be a minor breach of trust, whereas infidelity is a major violation. Subjective to be sure, but if I marry someone, I trust them and if I trust them, I won't have much, if anything, that needs to be private. My wife has my computer, smartphone, and email passwords. If you can't trust your spouse, then you're either shady, insecure, or a spook, IMHO. Communication being the foundation of a healthy relationship, etc., etc.
I presume you know that none of her husbands ever cheated or married more than once. Otherwise your comment seems to rely on a presumption that the woman is worse than any of the men, despite one of them allegedly abusing her. I hope you can agree, at least, that physical violence of any sort is a whole lot worse than any sort of infidelity. She may not be innocent but if you're to assume the worst of her then I might presume that you're just being sexist.
You presume too much. I don't know the details of her three husbands and their track record on fidelity. I'm not making any presumptions about them; I'm merely looking at the facts at hand which are: married three times unsuccessfully, cheated on husband #3 with husband #2 who was charged with spousal abuse. Based on these details, I drew the conclusion that some, if not most, of the blame for her failed relationships probably falls on her.
I honestly don't know why you're implying that I'm condoning spousal abuse, or a sexist, from what I said. I said nothing about who was "worse." I said she was the common denominator in three failed marriages and that she wasn't stable. How you managed to twist my words in your mind to make is seem I was assigning value to this "Jerry Springer" cast is beyond me.
Happy New Year.
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re:
Really!? Maybe our views are different because you're on the other side of the pond from me, but I can honestly say I'd much rather my wife snoop through my computer than sleep with her ex.
Now lets talk about the fact that the woman in this article is now finished with husband #3. What's the common denominator in all her marriages? Her. That should tell you something about how stable she is. Nevermind the fact she's cheating on her current husband with an abusive former husband. Is that something normal, sane, stable people do? I think not. If you can't see that, then we likely won't find any common ground on this issue.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Hacking?
I think I'll apply to the Detroit DA's office as a computer expert/technicial advisor...
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't see? Then you're not thinking this through, because unless you have the answers to some very important questions, you should be able to see how her sex life affects her son.
Where is the child while his mom is banging his former stepdad? Is he in the same room/domicile as his abusive step father? If so, he's potentially in danger. If not, he may be neglected and/or abandoned, which is definitely affecting her son.
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re: Re:
Notice I said "the majority." You named one of the exceptions.
While some of the TV shows are nice, the "best" TV shows (i.e. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc.) are only availiable via DVD or BluRay.
Just because you like the crap they stream doesn't mean everyone does. :P
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re:
Except... most of the major studios have blocked Netflix from renting out new releases for 28 days, and the majority of movies availiable for instant streaming are older and/or flops. So Hollywood has not really done Netflix (and their millions of subscribers) any favors either. Basically we're all screwed, unless we download the movies via bittorrent.
On the post: Once Again, More State Dept. Cables Show Swedish Copyright Enforcement At The Behest Of US
Re: Re:
What's your point? That the Pirate Party is out to ensure the freedom of information? How is that a bad thing? What nefarious activities do you think they are up to?
You're all full of vague assertions but in reality you say nothing. So please do so silently from now on, unless you actually have something meaningful to bring to the conversation.
Next >>