I think the point GP was trying to make was that drag and momentum are opposing forces and it's really a circumstance-depending toss up as to which one will win.
A web server is not a home, and web pages not protected by htaccess could presumably be public.
Not using htaccess would probably be counted as constructive permission anyway, since a website has to be published/brought online to be accessed at all, whereas a home has no such requirement to be entered, invasively or otherwise.
Probably because ISPs tend to have deeper pockets than customers and are thusly more apt to be shoehorned into a booby trap if they try to be a good samaratin.
Considering how much we depend on computers these days for increasingly vital stuff (read: power, water, hospital/medical records, etc...), people could very well die in a cyber war from the collateral damage if nothing else.
United States v. $124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.
My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it, then, logically, it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.
It's absurd, but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it's a damn sight more logical.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel the same way about American citizens and the NSA...
Yeah what's up with Funny not giving you a Karma bonus anymore?
I think it should count. After all, it still boosts your comment score and worse, crowds out any beneficial effect that another upmod could give.
[citation needed]
I do hope your case is true though, I just have a hard time having faith in the odds of people beating the man.
That AC stuff could very well be comical sarcasm.
Come on, he's human.
Do you expect him to not have a sense of humor just because he's a lawyer?
So now you're responding to someone responding to someone ... responding to a troll?
God GOD man you'll make the universe explode!
Better still would be:
1. You cannot moderate any topic you've posted in
2. Posts lock you out from moderating further
3. Existing moderations stay put.
Or:
1. Any mod points cancelled by a post get redistributed.
Which may seem to imply that fingerprints are formed during development and are not determined by genetics.
I think he means the one that can save you 15 percent or more on car insurance.
Doesn't matter.
If you pay off the right people, you can do anything. Including get a bullshit patent.
Sad but true.
How I wish I could moderate and THEN post...without losing my mod points or getting my moderations undone.
Except that the company pays the opportunity cost of having you mentoring instead of coding, as you're on the clock either way.
Unless of course he wants to have his cake and eat it to and have you programming and teaching simultanously.
I think the point GP was trying to make was that drag and momentum are opposing forces and it's really a circumstance-depending toss up as to which one will win.
You must work for LifeLock
That's different.
A web server is not a home, and web pages not protected by htaccess could presumably be public.
Not using htaccess would probably be counted as constructive permission anyway, since a website has to be published/brought online to be accessed at all, whereas a home has no such requirement to be entered, invasively or otherwise.
MS already did this sort of thing with insta-revokable video drivers that didn't play ball with Protected Video Path.
Forcing users to apply patches opens the door to slavery to whatever special interests get in bed with Microsoft.
Probably because ISPs tend to have deeper pockets than customers and are thusly more apt to be shoehorned into a booby trap if they try to be a good samaratin.
Except that government is vulnerable to pressure from lobbyists.
"Bot traffic" could easily be written up in legalese to mean anything special interests don't like, such as bit torrent.
Which may be even easier than expected if ACTA remains classified to the bitter end.
Especially if the RIAA lapdo, er, CBS is involved and your ISP happens to be a subsidiary.
Fighting "piracy" is one thing.
Not giving a shit about collateral damage is another.
Won't work in theory.
The fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will make step 1 nuke step 2.
Considering how much we depend on computers these days for increasingly vital stuff (read: power, water, hospital/medical records, etc...), people could very well die in a cyber war from the collateral damage if nothing else.
The police were not the ones who illegally searched his computer.
Global warming doesn't affect us now.
More importantly, actually doing anything about it would require the profits of entrenched special interests to suffer.
Our government can't do squat because it's being held hostage by corporate america.
United States v. $124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.
My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it, then, logically, it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.
It's absurd, but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it's a damn sight more logical.
They probably sued the money first.
US v $124,700
Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.
Besides, if money can be sued by the government, and thus deprived of its liberty, doesn't the money have the right to legal counsel?
What about the money's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination? ...need I go on?