The protections of the constitution extend to everyone. That's the point of the constitution, to give everyone the same rights, because it doesn't state it only applies to specific people. And I'd be glad to admit i was wrong, if you can prove to me the constitution only applies to certain people and not others, and that means referencing the exact line/s and even quoting the section specifying those exceptions.
If i have to do the same, and you are willing to admit you were wrong, then I wouldn't mind doing the same. Considering you like to throw conjecture and opinions out as factual arguments, I won't hold my breath.
Existing businesses will have one year after the ordinance goes into effect to comply. Those that fail to comply may be subject to a $500 fine and/or up to 90 days in jail. Each day of noncompliance is a different violation.
I know it wouldn't be applied like this, but...you get thrown in jail for 90 days. Each day is a separate violation. Unless someone sets it up for you, someone could abuse this to say...keep you in jail until you agree or close down the business?
Anyone who runs the risk of running bots, usually know the risks. That's their decision, and if they get banned, that's their fault. My problem with your comment, is that they are not all ruining the game for everyone. That statement is too broad, and generalizes everyone as a "bad guy" if they don't play through the app.
I will admit, the number of botters may be ruining the game by creating server instability, but even that isn't preventing people from playing. What I will defend, are the people providing a beneficial service for everyone, such as PokeVision.com. They have a much better tracking system, that does get abused (I.E. bots), but at least it provides a positive experience for anyone who uses it.
The only good thing I've seen is a bill (not sure if it's been passed) that states that attorney fees can be awarded in asset forfeiture cases. So if you have to get an attorney to fight it, you're more likely to get one without paying upfront, and it will be more likely you will get your money back because of that.
Sad thing is, this probably targets anyone who doesn't live in Oklahoma, and targets anyone who doesn't look like a white, well off or rich, person.
Clearly Anonymous has to claim someone is wrong without including any sources. Welcome to the internet, where everything on it is true.
This is just me poking fun, since stating someone "clearly has no idea what they are talking about" without clearly proving them wrong (I.E. include sources) is the same as stating an opinion, not a fact.
Lets just get rid of third party modems while we're at it, because they must be causing rampant piracy too...I think my smart TV must be pirating too, because it's too smart. Let's ban that next.
I love when these articles come up, since I use Ad Block Plus to keep myself safe from malicious ads. In some cases, you will come across a website that can detect the ad blocker, but only because of certain checks it makes. Surprise! You can check how they do it by looking at the site's source code, and that makes many sites easy to unblock.
For example, without naming sites, I've seen one check if an ad element (or box) has a height and width greater than 0, and blocks you if the box is set to 0. I just add a line to the ABP filter and I have access again!
At some point, enough businesses, websites, and individuals will be taken seriously, and ad companies will have to change their ways. Preferably to ads that don't drive you nuts or harm your computer...and maybe TV ads won't take up 20 minutes of your 60 minute show...#CordCuttingIsReal
I block ads due to malware being embedded into them, and the ad company doesn't do much other than possibly remove the ad when they find it. They don't check the ad for anything more than a payment before putting it out on the internet (at least in the few cases I've seen malware in ads). I hate the intrusive ads to that make everything so much harder, such as the ones that pop up in the middle of the page and won't let you go until you click on something. If you want to include ads, leave them on the side of the page, and stop putting them in the middle of each page. It's probably worse on mobile, but i have had a few ads completely redirect me to another page as soon as it loads. All you can do is hit the back button, but it's that easy on mobile to fall prey to an ad.
So i do what i can and use an ad blocker. When they put up prompts like that (can't see this because of your ad blocker), then i add filters that bypass it and still get in with no ads. :)
So next time you ask if you're free to go, if they don't say anything, explain you interpret that as a yes because they did not give you any reason to stay. By their logic, it sounds reasonable.
Too bad that doesn't matter, because cops and sometimes judges.
The sad thing here is that corporations are almost as bad as the government at times. The difference is that corporations don't have PR telling everyone how encryption is bad, M'kay.
Either way, the government only wants weaker encryption to make things more convenient for them. It's the concept of having your car unlock when your car key is within 5-10 feet of the door, but that opens up security issues like someone sending a signal to unlock the door. I've even heard of using extenders to get a nearby signal from the key, and send it much farther away to unlock the person's car. I don't know much about that, but both are very possible (creating the signal or extending it).
So he calls himself an internet hero, since his clients are being cyber-bullied. Then admits that he's a cyber bully, ready to cyber bully the cyber bullies.
Cyber bullying is always fun, till a bigger bully comes along, so watch your step lawyers. #truth
Maybe if I go around trolling trolls, I can call myself an internet hero that slays the virtual trolls with my trusty mouse and keys.
Well, Anonymous Coward (need to sign in to get a real name), this isn't about defending Google (evil!? or defamatory!). And yes I am poking fun at your comment, but that was obviously very bias against Google. Many of us may not like google either, but we also don't want to be held responsible for reposting links on twitter or anywhere. It's also very ignorant to think Google should be held responsible. Even if Google was evil, should we really have to stoop as low as them to bring them down? That sounds like you have to be evil to bring down evil corporations, and blaming them for something that isn't their fault could be considered evil (especially when it's to bring them down). Does that make you evil too?
This is like if I sued the library, because the library is responsible for offensive content in the books they carry. Why not social media while we're at it, since people probably re-post defamatory content. Lets just sue everyone because they are liars. I guess censorship is always good if Duffy benefits from it...sarcasm for those that didn't catch that (or I may get sued for defamation!?).
So is that why my internet was slower than other providers!? I'm glad I switched to Cox, but maybe they didn't want the fiber upgrades because the NSA doesn't want them to upgrade. Put it in, advertise it, then give slower speeds to appease the NSA overlords.
It sounds like you work for the school or the police chief, otherwise I think you need to revisit the facts. No where did he claim to have sex with the teacher, but just said yes to making out with her. At the very least, the school should have done an investigation to make sure it wasn't true, then dropped the whole thing.
Would you want to be potentially jailed and considered a felon for jokingly, or not, admitting to kissing someone older than you? The worst that should happen is someone takes you to court for defamation. At least then you can prove whether it was meant to be harmful or not. It's called Due Process, not throw them under the bus.
Our parents (most anyways) should have told us to treat others like you want to be treated. So why not treat those police officers the same way they treated that family? Maybe they will also stop using asset seizure laws if we take their "acquired" luxury cars too.
That's the bad thing about law. If the judge has any personal ties to the issue, it's automatically a bias (understandably so). However, in this case, I think it should be fine to bring up his personal experience with the exact same issue. Now it shouldn't become a problem like it has, but what that should do is force BA to show evidence why something like that happened to everyone on that plane (not just the judge).
I wouldn't think it's bias if he was able to bring up his own experience in the same issue on behalf of the other passengers on his flight. He tried, but of course BA wouldn't want that to happen and forced him to recuse himself. I understand that's how the law works, but it is still stupid that they make him a victim and he's forced to recuse himself. The same thing could happen if he didn't say anything, they found out later, then got the entire case thrown out because he just happened to be a victim to the same issue.
We all love DRM, because can't modify your own car's software because it's to "keep you safe," and you can't benchmark games on EA's Origin without them blocking you for 24 hours for swapping out hardware multiple times. I think the reason was for logging into multiple computers. The only difference is the legal issues you'll have on the former.
Now obviously it should be clear of my sarcasm for loving DRM (otherwise it is now). Let's all just get in the Pharmaceutical industry while we're at it, since they are copyright/DRM pros. Specifically referring to (for those that don't know), that they keep their expensive drugs on the market by delaying generics from joining the market. It's like implementing DRM and saying you can't do this because they said so, and you have no choice in the matter. Especially for the people who have to have the drugs.
It's not enough to make it difficult (or impossible) to get, but they also have to kick them in the nuts too. Next up, they implement DRM (Diseases Ready for the Masses), so they can suck up more money. More sarcasm there of course.
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
If i have to do the same, and you are willing to admit you were wrong, then I wouldn't mind doing the same. Considering you like to throw conjecture and opinions out as factual arguments, I won't hold my breath.
really...
I know it wouldn't be applied like this, but...you get thrown in jail for 90 days. Each day is a separate violation. Unless someone sets it up for you, someone could abuse this to say...keep you in jail until you agree or close down the business?
Wild speculation, but it is worded very poorly.
Re:
I will admit, the number of botters may be ruining the game by creating server instability, but even that isn't preventing people from playing. What I will defend, are the people providing a beneficial service for everyone, such as PokeVision.com. They have a much better tracking system, that does get abused (I.E. bots), but at least it provides a positive experience for anyone who uses it.
(untitled comment)
Sad thing is, this probably targets anyone who doesn't live in Oklahoma, and targets anyone who doesn't look like a white, well off or rich, person.
Re:
This is just me poking fun, since stating someone "clearly has no idea what they are talking about" without clearly proving them wrong (I.E. include sources) is the same as stating an opinion, not a fact.
ISP Modems
Ad blocking is unstoppable
For example, without naming sites, I've seen one check if an ad element (or box) has a height and width greater than 0, and blocks you if the box is set to 0. I just add a line to the ABP filter and I have access again!
At some point, enough businesses, websites, and individuals will be taken seriously, and ad companies will have to change their ways. Preferably to ads that don't drive you nuts or harm your computer...and maybe TV ads won't take up 20 minutes of your 60 minute show...#CordCuttingIsReal
malware
So i do what i can and use an ad blocker. When they put up prompts like that (can't see this because of your ad blocker), then i add filters that bypass it and still get in with no ads. :)
(untitled comment)
Too bad that doesn't matter, because cops and sometimes judges.
Re: My response to their 'call for responses'
Either way, the government only wants weaker encryption to make things more convenient for them. It's the concept of having your car unlock when your car key is within 5-10 feet of the door, but that opens up security issues like someone sending a signal to unlock the door. I've even heard of using extenders to get a nearby signal from the key, and send it much farther away to unlock the person's car. I don't know much about that, but both are very possible (creating the signal or extending it).
Ironic Stupidity wrapped in a taco?
Maybe if I go around trolling trolls, I can call myself an internet hero that slays the virtual trolls with my trusty mouse and keys.
Re:
Poke the bear!
(untitled comment)
It could just be the 15604th account they made? Probably all copy and paste
Slower internet speeds
Re:
Would you want to be potentially jailed and considered a felon for jokingly, or not, admitting to kissing someone older than you? The worst that should happen is someone takes you to court for defamation. At least then you can prove whether it was meant to be harmful or not. It's called Due Process, not throw them under the bus.
(untitled comment)
Need SLAPP law
Just an amusing thought.
(untitled comment)
I wouldn't think it's bias if he was able to bring up his own experience in the same issue on behalf of the other passengers on his flight. He tried, but of course BA wouldn't want that to happen and forced him to recuse himself. I understand that's how the law works, but it is still stupid that they make him a victim and he's forced to recuse himself. The same thing could happen if he didn't say anything, they found out later, then got the entire case thrown out because he just happened to be a victim to the same issue.
Loving the benefits
Now obviously it should be clear of my sarcasm for loving DRM (otherwise it is now). Let's all just get in the Pharmaceutical industry while we're at it, since they are copyright/DRM pros. Specifically referring to (for those that don't know), that they keep their expensive drugs on the market by delaying generics from joining the market. It's like implementing DRM and saying you can't do this because they said so, and you have no choice in the matter. Especially for the people who have to have the drugs.
It's not enough to make it difficult (or impossible) to get, but they also have to kick them in the nuts too. Next up, they implement DRM (Diseases Ready for the Masses), so they can suck up more money. More sarcasm there of course.
More comments from dakre >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dakre.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt