Blarg, replied before really reading the whole post. Disregard:P
I mean, you'd just need to work out which precise areas you had to munge. Make the eyes a slightly different shade of blue or whatever. If the algorithm accepts a certain amount of fudge factor that's kind of stretching the definition of "hash."
It does if it's hashing the binary photo data, which is what GP was talking about. For that matter, cropping the photo would do it.
The facial recognition is just to recognize whether it *is* a face, not match it against others it's seen. If by "hashes" they literally meant a hash like MD5 or SHA-1.
Maybe it had something to do with the only possible property damage they could've argued was walking on the grass. This example is obtuse and you know it.
You mean they'll arrest me under laws that basically don't exist anywhere in Europe ?
Oh alright, the context upthread was about Holocaust laws in Germany.
Lets use a more accurate analogy. If you forget to pull your handbrake up when you park, and your car starts running down a road and is about to run me down - I sure as fuck will get out of the way EVEN if that means your car hits a pole instead and gets destroyed.
What is this, some kind of terrible trolley problem analogy? That doesn't work at all in this context. You're not destroying the car.
Hate art that harms me
You're undoubtedly not even a Jew, so excuse me while I blow a raspberry at your "mental anguish."
I have a right to destroy that property your property rights do not extend to the point of intruding on MY rights not to be harmed.
You've seriously never heard the "my right to swing my fists ends at your face" line before? This is such a stupid slippery slope argument. Would me painting a dildo on the side of my car cause you mental anguish? What about a firearm? What about a Republican bumper sticker? Do all those give you the "right" to destroy my car? Because MENTAL ANGUISH!! D:
“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”
If it's in a public gallery or a billboard or something, then the cops can arrest you for public urination/indecency/whatever.
I'm sure you wouldn't argue that you have the right to break into somebody's house and wreck up the place. How is destroying one form of property different than another?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -H. L. Mencken
A lot of people seem to use "hypocrite" to mean "I hate him but have a hard time explaining why." Then half the time whoever they're talking to assumes they have their reasons but don't really want to get into them.
The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestionable, but only as a means to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.[23] While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.[23] Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[24] The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.[25]
Wikipedia - considering how liberal Wikipedia is, I'd expect them to call it out if "killing trans people is legal" were a real thing.
Actually no, that was other posters; I just didn't argue the point.
I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep
No I didn't sidestep; I said that monarchies and dictatorships are a continuum, so I don't see that this argument means anything. Putin is rather authoritarian but he was elected so there's aspects of both ends.
Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition
Yeah, and I'm saying your definition is crap. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship isn't well-defined at all.
Well, if we're going to get pedantic, "transitory" would also include ending at the heat death of the universe. You didn't use the word "all" but it seemed like a fair reading of your post.
"Elective Monarchies are a transitory state" has subject-verb agreement problems, too, but now I'm just being spiteful:)
Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
This entire thread has wandered off into the weeds of arguing about hair-splitting terminology differences. I'm not seeing that you have a high road to stand on here, to mangle a few metaphors. What is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship? Plenty of kings have gained power by killing anybody who would oppose them. Monarchy can be put on a sliding scale between absolute and constitutional. . . . Heck, back in ancient Rome they called the guy they appointed leader "dictator," but these days aren't dictators required to seize power? Cf. terrorist vs. freedom fighter.
You started out with a good point but now there's a bunch of goalpost-moving going on. "it's a monarchy" "monarchies are just dictatorships" "what about elective ones" "those aren't real governments" "what about this counterexample" "go away"
Slashdot Mirror
Truer words...
So you plan to discontinue using the Internet when prices go up, which will probably be next year after the bill passes.
Reddit
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
Restricting the rights of companies to more thoroughly fuck over their customers? Oh, the horror!
Blarg, replied before really reading the whole post. Disregard :P
I mean, you'd just need to work out which precise areas you had to munge. Make the eyes a slightly different shade of blue or whatever. If the algorithm accepts a certain amount of fudge factor that's kind of stretching the definition of "hash."
It does if it's hashing the binary photo data, which is what GP was talking about. For that matter, cropping the photo would do it.
The facial recognition is just to recognize whether it *is* a face, not match it against others it's seen. If by "hashes" they literally meant a hash like MD5 or SHA-1.
It would be pretty funny if people started all using a slightly munged photo of Mark Zuckerberg.
So you just apply a filter to the photo that adds a little random visual noise to the data, and everybody can still use the same photo.
Whitelist, not blacklist.
This whole thing is still a government consideration. Nothing gives YOU the right to destroy the thing legally, which was your initial claim:
If he has the right to draw a painting declaring that god hates me ? I have the right to piss on that painting.
Maybe it had something to do with the only possible property damage they could've argued was walking on the grass. This example is obtuse and you know it.
You mean they'll arrest me under laws that basically don't exist anywhere in Europe ?
Oh alright, the context upthread was about Holocaust laws in Germany.
Lets use a more accurate analogy. If you forget to pull your handbrake up when you park, and your car starts running down a road and is about to run me down - I sure as fuck will get out of the way EVEN if that means your car hits a pole instead and gets destroyed.
What is this, some kind of terrible trolley problem analogy? That doesn't work at all in this context. You're not destroying the car.
Hate art that harms me
You're undoubtedly not even a Jew, so excuse me while I blow a raspberry at your "mental anguish."
I have a right to destroy that property your property rights do not extend to the point of intruding on MY rights not to be harmed.
You've seriously never heard the "my right to swing my fists ends at your face" line before? This is such a stupid slippery slope argument. Would me painting a dildo on the side of my car cause you mental anguish? What about a firearm? What about a Republican bumper sticker? Do all those give you the "right" to destroy my car? Because MENTAL ANGUISH!! D:
You mean you didn't hear about Silver Night when the KGB duct taped everyone's mouths across the entire country shut?
“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
The hypocrisy is strong with these jerks.
If it's in a public gallery or a billboard or something, then the cops can arrest you for public urination/indecency/whatever.
I'm sure you wouldn't argue that you have the right to break into somebody's house and wreck up the place. How is destroying one form of property different than another?
Did somebody commission the art or is it graffiti? What gives you the right to vandalize the art someone else bought and paid for?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
-H. L. Mencken
+1 Informative
FTFY
It's the stupid redefining of "-phobia" from a psychiatric condition ("an irrational fear of") to "any of a range of negative feelings towards."
I have negative feelings towards murder, does that make me murderphobic?
A lot of people seem to use "hypocrite" to mean "I hate him but have a hard time explaining why." Then half the time whoever they're talking to assumes they have their reasons but don't really want to get into them.
The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestionable, but only as a means to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.[23] While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.[23] Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[24] The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.[25]
Wikipedia - considering how liberal Wikipedia is, I'd expect them to call it out if "killing trans people is legal" were a real thing.
And apparently California is that 50th state.
Since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Good day, sir.
You call Russia an elected monarchy
Actually no, that was other posters; I just didn't argue the point.
I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep
No I didn't sidestep; I said that monarchies and dictatorships are a continuum, so I don't see that this argument means anything. Putin is rather authoritarian but he was elected so there's aspects of both ends.
Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition
Yeah, and I'm saying your definition is crap. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship isn't well-defined at all.
Well, if we're going to get pedantic, "transitory" would also include ending at the heat death of the universe. You didn't use the word "all" but it seemed like a fair reading of your post.
"Elective Monarchies are a transitory state" has subject-verb agreement problems, too, but now I'm just being spiteful :)
Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
This entire thread has wandered off into the weeds of arguing about hair-splitting terminology differences. I'm not seeing that you have a high road to stand on here, to mangle a few metaphors. What is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship? Plenty of kings have gained power by killing anybody who would oppose them. Monarchy can be put on a sliding scale between absolute and constitutional. . . . Heck, back in ancient Rome they called the guy they appointed leader "dictator," but these days aren't dictators required to seize power? Cf. terrorist vs. freedom fighter.
You started out with a good point but now there's a bunch of goalpost-moving going on. "it's a monarchy" "monarchies are just dictatorships" "what about elective ones" "those aren't real governments" "what about this counterexample" "go away"