Subject line says it all. This is utterly ridiculous. I've heard about the management engine before, but I had no idea it had a networking stack, let alone a full-blown web server. I thought that it was doing the management, not that it provided access for external management. I guess I assumed that nobody was stupid enough to expose low-level hardware controllers like that to potentially hostile actors, at least not without requiring something like a maintenance jumper or DIP switch. I know, stupid of me to assume basic competence.
In isolation, sure, but this sort of thing indicates a pattern. Do this enough times and it's inevitable that someone ends up making a stand, and your attempt to silence criticism ends up doing more harm than the person you were trying to silence. Of course, we need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law, so fewer people are intimidated into folding quietly.
Generally speaking, no the law is not open to interpretation. It is illegal to commit murder, I don't see how that is open to interpretation.
Two words for you: justifiable homicide.
The reason we have judges in the first place is because the law is open to interpretation. Judges are the people we have empowered to do that interpretation.
That said, a major part of any lawyer's job is understanding case law, that murky quagmire of standing interpretations and precedents. Any lawyer worth their salt should have known exactly how this would've turned out.
Fundamentally? Not a damn thing. Which is why people are worried. Internet access goes far beyond merely delivering media. Arbitrary, profit-driven restrictions to certain services would have major economic, political, and social repercussions. Even in the best case scenario, it still greatly raises the barrier to entry for new sites/services, which in turn greatly stifles innovation.
Many of the services that you currently use likely would not exist had this walled garden vision of the internet been in place at the time of their conception.
NYPD: "What's that? We're in a parallel universe where somehow asset forfeiture reform was magically passed? Huh. Well, let's boot up the database so we can return all our plunder... er... evidence."
*sound of grinding gears and electric sparks*
*smoke billows from the next room*
NYPD: "Hm, seems like the database has mysteriously crashed. Guess we'll have to hang onto all that loot... er... booty... umm... uh... shit we stole."
I posted a link on it, read long time ago. I know what it means.
You might want to read it again, then.
You don't have to specifically say someone is communist to try and red-bait or discredit him.
Red-baiting is a specific form of an ad hominem attack, where you insinuate that someone is a member of an "enemy" group, in order to discredit them. It's attacking the person, not the argument. Yet, the post you accuse of red-baiting is specifically criticizing the argument. Therefore you either do not actually understand what red-baiting is, or you're purposefully engaging in bad-faith debate in order to disrupt any meaningful conversation. That can't possibly be the case, though, right?
Just as you are doing now, nothing about the ideas of this article, just trying to discredit me.
So... Either Russia has a sophisticated internet propaganda arm that has been leaked by several whistleblowers, or Russia has a sophisticated internet propaganda arm that's using fake whistleblowers to promote their agenda?
I feel like architectural copyrights should be like software copyrights. If another architect directly copies from a building's plans without permission, that would be infringement. If they independently design a building, then regardless if it shares design elements, or even if it's a carbon copy, that's fine.
Interestingly it also flatly contradicts another popular saying around here:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
No, it doesn't. Hitchen's razor merely states that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In other words, that saying is a somewhat narrower reformulation of Hitchen's razor. They are in no way incompatible.
Re: Re: What's the penalty for violating the 1st ammendment?
A little bit of research indicates that your interpretation seems to be the commonly accepted one, but that law is ambiguously worded... The section regarding racial motivation, as written, could be read as applying to the deprivation of rights. Guess it's one of those "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law" things.
(Also a good example of why law is hard. It's not enough to just know the laws, you also need to know how they're commonly interpreted and applied.)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Quotes...
There, FTFY. Now, if only reality were that easy to escape.
On the post: Recent Intel Chipsets Have A Built-In Hidden Computer, Running Minix With A Networking Stack And A Web Server
Re: Avoid Online Scams
On the post: Recent Intel Chipsets Have A Built-In Hidden Computer, Running Minix With A Networking Stack And A Web Server
What. The. Frak.
On the post: Taylor Swift's Legal Rep Tries To Kill Critical Blog Post With Bogus Defamation, Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers
On the post: Taylor Swift's Legal Rep Tries To Kill Critical Blog Post With Bogus Defamation, Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers
Two words for you: justifiable homicide.
The reason we have judges in the first place is because the law is open to interpretation. Judges are the people we have empowered to do that interpretation.
That said, a major part of any lawyer's job is understanding case law, that murky quagmire of standing interpretations and precedents. Any lawyer worth their salt should have known exactly how this would've turned out.
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
Re: Re: IT'S ALL EVIL
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re:
Many of the services that you currently use likely would not exist had this walled garden vision of the internet been in place at the time of their conception.
On the post: Marketing Guy: Google Image Search Is A Honeypot Set Up By Aggressive Copyright Litigants
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Something is wrong with the site
On the post: NYPD Tells Judge Its $25 Million Forfeiture Database Has No Backup
Twilight Zone
*sound of grinding gears and electric sparks*
*smoke billows from the next room*
NYPD: "Hm, seems like the database has mysteriously crashed. Guess we'll have to hang onto all that loot... er... booty... umm... uh... shit we stole."
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a very old game
You might want to read it again, then.
Red-baiting is a specific form of an ad hominem attack, where you insinuate that someone is a member of an "enemy" group, in order to discredit them. It's attacking the person, not the argument. Yet, the post you accuse of red-baiting is specifically criticizing the argument. Therefore you either do not actually understand what red-baiting is, or you're purposefully engaging in bad-faith debate in order to disrupt any meaningful conversation. That can't possibly be the case, though, right?
No, you're doing that all by yourself.
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re: Re: Re: a very old game
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a very old game
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re:
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re: Russian WhistleBlower?? More Fake News
I'm sorry, did you have an actual argument?
On the post: Neighbor Sues For $2.5 Million After Renovation Looks Too Much Like Their Own House
Re: Re: Easy way out for defendant.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
No, it doesn't. Hitchen's razor merely states that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In other words, that saying is a somewhat narrower reformulation of Hitchen's razor. They are in no way incompatible.
On the post: Trump May Not Be Serious About His NBC Threats... But He May Have Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: What's the penalty for violating the 1st ammendment?
A little bit of research indicates that your interpretation seems to be the commonly accepted one, but that law is ambiguously worded... The section regarding racial motivation, as written, could be read as applying to the deprivation of rights. Guess it's one of those "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law" things.
(Also a good example of why law is hard. It's not enough to just know the laws, you also need to know how they're commonly interpreted and applied.)
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re: Re: Sunk cost fallacy in effect?
On the post: DHS To Officially Require Immigrants' Files To Contain Social Media Info
Re:
Next >>