Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.
> You never need to send a text while driving, But you do need to actually get there. Hence looking at Google maps on the phone.
Non-idiotic people do that before they even step in the vehicle. How often do you travel to places you've never been before, anyway? I'm guessing a value somewhere between "seldom" and "never."
>It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did. Keep on pissing in the wind if it pleases you.
I'd say "keep endangering the lives of every person on the road until you either get arrested or kill someone," but I'd really prefer if you would just stop being an idiot.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while masturbating furiously while brandishing a shoulder-fired grenade launcher than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
Statistically, you're playing Russian Roulette when you do that. Not just with your own life, but the lives of every single other person sharing the road with you.
So no, you don't get an exemption. For reasons obvious to those of us who aren't completely self-focused.
The judge held (PDF) that the defendants had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network and therefore couldn't assert any privacy claims over the data.
"inadvertently made public" == "did not intend to make public."
Intent has fuck-all to do with the ruling; per the judge, what these pervs did and what AT&T did are exactly the same thing.
Whoever this AC arguing with you is, they should really consider reading the summary before digging any deeper.
Specifically, the last sentence, where the judge states that intent has nothing to do with the ruling (admittedly fucked up, but it does technically legitimize weez's access of the files AT&T made public-facing).
Because that WAS the intention of the owner: to share their data with random, unknown 3rd parties. That's pretty much the entire purpose of P2P networks.
According to the summary, intent is non sequitur:
The judge held that the defendants had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network and therefore couldn't assert any privacy claims over the data.
Care to expound on that, or am I safe in thinking you're probably the submitter, and thus are acting out against criticism, true though it may be?
If you're not, then ponder this: If the submitter didn't want to be seen as a narcissistic D-bag with a serious ego complex, don't you think they would have worded their quandary in a more neutral fashion, rather than essentially calling everyone they work with noisy idiots?
Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.
And yet billions of people successfully use the US Dollar every day to complete transactions, and it remains the world's most popular and useful currency. Inexplicable!
You can thank the largest military force the world has ever seen (and the handful of powerful oligarchs who use said military to maintain global monopolies on banking and oil sales) for that.
Granted, I don't know Mr. Submitter from Adam, but from the tone of your post you sound like a self-aggrandizing jerk. Not only that, you also seem quite keen on talking shit on and otherwise denigrating the people who have elected to employ you (albeit in a rather passive-aggressive manner). You show a complete lack of respect for proper procedure and formality, which, regardless of your personal feelings, exist for a reason.
I'd recommend you take that chip off your shoulder poste-haste. You might be the wunderkind you think yourself, but you also might not; so, maybe try to not be such a douche-bag about "having exponentially many needless conversations" with your co-workers. Or, find a different job where you don't have to worry about being "bothered" by your contemporaries; I know lots of places with plenty of janitorial positions available.
Microsoft deliberately made the architecture of Windows so byzantine, baroque, and spaghetti-like that even their own in-house staff of tens of thousands of developers could barely make sense of it
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
also lead to mass layoff and unemployment and be the direct cause of the next great depression.
Hey, now, this is Slashdot; I'm sure, with our collective intellect, we could come up with a rationale explaining how media piracy is directly responsible for smallpox and the Holocaust.
At least, one equally as convincing as any argument the MPAA has made thus far; admittedly, it's really an easy task when you consider the fact we're talking about a group of people who once claimed to have lost more revenue to piracy than the combined GDP of the entire planet. Ridiculous is their bread-and-butter.
'All GCHQ's [hereby referred to as "we" and "us"] work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework [we come up with on the fly] which ensure that our activities are authorised [by us], necessary and proportionate [to us], and that there is rigorous oversight [by people who work for us], including from the Secretary of State [who also works for us], the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners [yup, us again!] and the Intelligence and Security Committee [figured it out yet?].'
At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.
You can actually do quite a lot of good things at the NSA. Research and development of cryptography and cyber attack preventions for example.
Besides the fact it seems the NSA is far more interested in fucking up cryptography, what with their mandatory backdoors and all, what good is that research and development if the only people allowed to access or use it are TLA agents?
Side note: This is at least the second post where you've made this claim about the "good side" of the No Such Agency, without citing a source that would verify any of it.
The issue though with saying that is that you make the assumption that not having access to a firearm would change the ultimate outcome. In Japan nearly all suicides occur by hanging and they have double the normal suicide rate of the US. Does that mean they should implement rope control?
Expanding on that, when someone tries to hang themselves and fails, is it considered a 'rope-related injury?' No.
So why does it count if someone does the same thing with a gun?
I agree with much of your post, but believe that suicides should be included in the stats.
To include them in the stats would be disengenuous at best, outright intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Japan has almost 0 guns in private hands, and a suicide rate almost twice what we have in the US.
Besides, somebody intentionally sticking a gun in their own mouths and pulling the trigger doesn't really qualify as an "accident."
To exclude them would be to pretend that making suicide extremely easy by owning a gun wasn't a problem.
Spoken like someone who's never actually known a suicidal person. Lemme tell ya, bud, if somebody truly wants to end their own life, they're going to do it, whether they use a gun, or a rope, or a handful of painkillers.
This could be a way to get a custom turbo made for a small displacement engine that would be too expensive to one-off otherwise (a way to get some nice power out of a scooter that would be cheaper to license) or have more possibilities in regards to what kind of engine can be put into RC models.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the state/municipality.
Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.
> You never need to send a text while driving,
But you do need to actually get there. Hence looking at Google maps on the phone.
Non-idiotic people do that before they even step in the vehicle. How often do you travel to places you've never been before, anyway? I'm guessing a value somewhere between "seldom" and "never."
>It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did.
Keep on pissing in the wind if it pleases you.
I'd say "keep endangering the lives of every person on the road until you either get arrested or kill someone," but I'd really prefer if you would just stop being an idiot.
Show of hands, how many of us have had to honk at the motorist in front of us when the light changes because they're still fiddling with their phone?
Wanna have some real fun? Hit your horn while the light is still red.
Make sure you turn on the dash-cam first :)
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while masturbating furiously while brandishing a shoulder-fired grenade launcher than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
Statistically, you're playing Russian Roulette when you do that. Not just with your own life, but the lives of every single other person sharing the road with you.
So no, you don't get an exemption. For reasons obvious to those of us who aren't completely self-focused.
RFTS, dude:
The judge held (PDF) that the defendants had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network and therefore couldn't assert any privacy claims over the data.
"inadvertently made public" == "did not intend to make public."
Intent has fuck-all to do with the ruling; per the judge, what these pervs did and what AT&T did are exactly the same thing.
Whoever this AC arguing with you is, they should really consider reading the summary before digging any deeper.
Specifically, the last sentence, where the judge states that intent has nothing to do with the ruling (admittedly fucked up, but it does technically legitimize weez's access of the files AT&T made public-facing).
It seems like most young programmers are way more interested in getting paid.
FTFY.
Welcome to the Casino Economy - if it ain't making the House richer, it ain't worth paying anyone to do.
Because that WAS the intention of the owner: to share their data with random, unknown 3rd parties. That's pretty much the entire purpose of P2P networks.
According to the summary, intent is non sequitur:
The judge held that the defendants had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network and therefore couldn't assert any privacy claims over the data.
inadvertently == no intent.
So... if US debtors call in what we owe, they can be paid in missiles and tanks?
Just kidding, I know what you're getting at; see my earlier reply to another poster who said basically the same thing you just did.
Care to expound on that, or am I safe in thinking you're probably the submitter, and thus are acting out against criticism, true though it may be?
If you're not, then ponder this: If the submitter didn't want to be seen as a narcissistic D-bag with a serious ego complex, don't you think they would have worded their quandary in a more neutral fashion, rather than essentially calling everyone they work with noisy idiots?
Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.
And yet billions of people successfully use the US Dollar every day to complete transactions, and it remains the world's most popular and useful currency. Inexplicable!
You can thank the largest military force the world has ever seen (and the handful of powerful oligarchs who use said military to maintain global monopolies on banking and oil sales) for that.
So, less inexplicable, and more despicable.
Granted, I don't know Mr. Submitter from Adam, but from the tone of your post you sound like a self-aggrandizing jerk. Not only that, you also seem quite keen on talking shit on and otherwise denigrating the people who have elected to employ you (albeit in a rather passive-aggressive manner). You show a complete lack of respect for proper procedure and formality, which, regardless of your personal feelings, exist for a reason.
I'd recommend you take that chip off your shoulder poste-haste. You might be the wunderkind you think yourself, but you also might not; so, maybe try to not be such a douche-bag about "having exponentially many needless conversations" with your co-workers. Or, find a different job where you don't have to worry about being "bothered" by your contemporaries; I know lots of places with plenty of janitorial positions available.
...your chicks for free.
I really don't get all you people who think a currency based on internet vapors is worth a bucket of warm spit.
Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.
Microsoft deliberately made the architecture of Windows so byzantine, baroque, and spaghetti-like that even their own in-house staff of tens of thousands of developers could barely make sense of it
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
... but don't rule out malice.
At least, one equally as convincing as any argument the MPAA has made thus far;
Then I go with... because of the faries.
Change that to "magic sky fairies" and you could probably garner one hell of a following.
also lead to mass layoff and unemployment and be the direct cause of the next great depression.
Hey, now, this is Slashdot; I'm sure, with our collective intellect, we could come up with a rationale explaining how media piracy is directly responsible for smallpox and the Holocaust.
At least, one equally as convincing as any argument the MPAA has made thus far; admittedly, it's really an easy task when you consider the fact we're talking about a group of people who once claimed to have lost more revenue to piracy than the combined GDP of the entire planet. Ridiculous is their bread-and-butter.
FTFY:
'All GCHQ's [hereby referred to as "we" and "us"] work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework [we come up with on the fly] which ensure that our activities are authorised [by us], necessary and proportionate [to us], and that there is rigorous oversight [by people who work for us], including from the Secretary of State [who also works for us], the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners [yup, us again!] and the Intelligence and Security Committee [figured it out yet?].'
At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.
You can actually do quite a lot of good things at the NSA. Research and development of cryptography and cyber attack preventions for example.
Besides the fact it seems the NSA is far more interested in fucking up cryptography, what with their mandatory backdoors and all, what good is that research and development if the only people allowed to access or use it are TLA agents?
Side note: This is at least the second post where you've made this claim about the "good side" of the No Such Agency, without citing a source that would verify any of it.
Might seem kinda shill-y to some people here.
I would wager significantly less than the number of people who blow their hands off fucking around with fireworks.
Need to make sure threats stay ended ;)
If it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't move...
It's a well-disciplined VC!
Oops, sorry, wrong punchline.
Every time someone brings up gun deaths, gun supporters counter that the majority of the deaths are *suicides*.
Then if people point that out, gun supporters claim that's been "debunked".
You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Because intentional suicide != accidental death, nor is it an act of violence against another person, dumbfuck.
Because a suicidal person is going to kill themselves; the mechanism by which they do this is non sequitur.
Statistically, 99% of the people who say, "Statistically, blah blah blah" without citing a reference source are completely full of shit.
The issue though with saying that is that you make the assumption that not having access to a firearm would change the ultimate outcome. In Japan nearly all suicides occur by hanging and they have double the normal suicide rate of the US. Does that mean they should implement rope control?
Expanding on that, when someone tries to hang themselves and fails, is it considered a 'rope-related injury?' No.
So why does it count if someone does the same thing with a gun?
I agree with much of your post, but believe that suicides should be included in the stats.
To include them in the stats would be disengenuous at best, outright intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Japan has almost 0 guns in private hands, and a suicide rate almost twice what we have in the US.
Besides, somebody intentionally sticking a gun in their own mouths and pulling the trigger doesn't really qualify as an "accident."
To exclude them would be to pretend that making suicide extremely easy by owning a gun wasn't a problem.
Spoken like someone who's never actually known a suicidal person. Lemme tell ya, bud, if somebody truly wants to end their own life, they're going to do it, whether they use a gun, or a rope, or a handful of painkillers.
This could be a way to get a custom turbo made for a small displacement engine that would be too expensive to one-off otherwise (a way to get some nice power out of a scooter that would be cheaper to license) or have more possibilities in regards to what kind of engine can be put into RC models.
Fucking brilliant, man. Just brilliant.