Actually, that is close to how a lot of drug research is done. 1) Create new drug, 2) throw at a lot of cultures to see what effect it has on any of them, 3) follow up where an effect is observed, 4) market. For example, Rogaine was originally developed to treat ulcers and hypertension, and Viagra to treat hypertension and mild heart problems, and look where they went.
How can someone work for the NSA and NOT be aware that they track everything?
She didn't work for the NSA; so was employed by a contractor that provides classified translation services, and apparently for that work had access to the NSA's network (either NSANet or JWICS since SIPRnet is only secret). Not realizing they track shows she isn't terribly bright.
If I was an NSA leaker, I certainly wouldn't be e-mailing my leaks from my work computer/e-mail account. I'd set up a throwaway account (and even then would be looking over my shoulder every second).
OK, she is VERY dumb. And I agree with your tactics - as a good first measure, but nowhere near all I would do.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you cite aren't problems and have few dissenters, but what happens when schools start setting rules for admission based on controversial criteria?
You make statements against imposing Sharia Law? You Islamophobe - no admission!
You make statements that [pick a former US president] did things that hurt the U.S.? You anti-American - no admission!
You are registered as a [pick a party]? You engage in wrong-think - no admission!
As lgw said, it is legal for a school to do all of these things. I am not advocating passing laws forbidding the school's right to set such rules, just pointing out the dangers of the slope that often appears.
It is a private institution [...] SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have.
Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. There are still anti-discrimination laws private institutions must follow, so for example a whites only or blacks only college is illegal under federal law. Also, Harvard receives federal funding which, despite being a private college, makes them subject to a slew of other laws controlling what criteria they can use to admit students.
I think the problem lgw was referring to is the slippery slope. This sets the precedent for them to go after things they disagree with. Today it is the students being assholes (in most people's eyes), but what will it be tomorrow? Nothing is stopping them from doing it for the things lgw said.
It's like the issue right now with "hate speech". There are groups calling for banning it, but what is it? If you let people ban it for one form of comments a group finds objectionable, why can't another group later use it ban things most don't see a problem with? After all, to that group it represents hate, so who are you to say it shouldn't be banned? Don't laugh, it is already happening.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
The 5th amendment gives you the right to not testify and provide proof of your own guilt through direct testimony.
The Fifth Amendment gives you the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, or to quote it, for one "to be a witness against himself". Note the wording. You can be compelled to testify, just not as a witness against yourself. What is well established in precedent is this means you cannot be forced to provide testimony that would prove your guilt, but you can be forced to testify about facts not in dispute, like the combination to the safe in your home that people have seen you open, or the passcode to your phone. That isn't deemed to be testifying against oneself.
The issue here though is the person claims he gave the passcode but the police say it doesn't work, so is he lying, or isn't he? The Court thinks he is lying, which is a separate crime, so he gets to spend some quality time in the care of the state.
It doesn't give you the right to hide evidence.
There is no legal right to hide evidence, but unless the state can prove you know where the evidence is, there is no legal right to compel you to disclose its location. It is extremely hard to prove what someone knows, versus what you think they probably know, so this becomes a very hard bar to overcome for the state.
A more apt metaphor might be refusing to provide access to a safety deposit box, or open a home safe. Both of those can be physically forced with the right tools and a court order.
The analogy is flawed but comes close to the problem being faced by the legal system. That problem being in the physical world the safe can be forced open, but such ability may not exist for a cryptographically protected "vault". The legal system is still trying to figure out how to deal with this issue without unduly prejudicing the defendant. Remember, in the legal system rights are weighted against each other, and the state (i.e. the embodiment of the people) has rights too, so it becomes a test of which right outweighs the other.
Load an app on your phone that will wipe the thing if a certain passcode is entered.
That would be obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence, so then it becomes which is worse, the penalties for destruction, or the penalties for the crime being investigated.
How about a low-tech solution of blocking the visible-under-the-windshield VIN with a piece of paper? Is that legal? It seems like it would help reduce the problems, or at least make the thieves more inclined to move on to a different vehicle.
In California it is illegal, but you can use the CA DMV website to look up the VIN if you have the license plate number, so covering the VIN would just add one more step for the crooks.
[...] possible because Jeep Wranglers allow thieves to pop the hood from the outside of the car and disable the alarm even before using their non-authenticated replacement key.
There's your main problem right there.
If you look you will find that a lot of car hoods can be opened by inserting the right tool through the grill to access the locking mechanism. It's a lot like how a slim jim can get you in through the door.
I doubt the gang did the hacking. There is probably a person or group who figured out how to do this hack, then sold the info and devices with instructions to the gang who used it. It's a lot like hackers of old versus script kiddies today. A couple decades ago to hack a system normally meant the hacker had the skills and understanding, but today it is often just a person who knows how to run a program that someone else wrote.
I'm betting news articles for certain viewpoints will contain "helpful" alternative viewpoint links, while articles with favored viewpoints won't have any links to "other perspectives on the topic". Yep, no way this can't be abused.
Instead people will ask on board and will be pointed to the backdoor.
The internet treats such things as damage and simply routes around them.
Well, to use a car analogy, there is road construction near me right now. The businesses on the other side of the construction are significantly closer than the ones in the other direction, but I still prefer to avoid the hassle of dealing with the special twists and turns to get to my preferred places, and instead go to the farther ones since they are easier to get to.
Fact - people are lazy animals, and if you put obstacles in front of them, the vast majority of them look for the path of least resistance, even if it yields an inferior result. Blocks like this one aren't designed to block everyone, just make it painful enough that a large number won't hassle with a workaround, and because of human nature, it normally works.
Someone puts a chain and lock across the front door of a business. But the place has a backdoor down a poorly lit alley that is still open and accessible, so IF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT AND KNOW HOW TO GET THERE they can still get in. Do you think the blocked front door will cause some, maybe most, visitors to go away instead of looking for another way in?
Haven't read the article, but this would only work if you have a high enough resolution camera that takes the picture from a close enough distance, and what focal stop is also a consideration. Basically, if the person is wielding a 40 megapixel camera zoomed in to your face and hands (peace sign) then maybe. For regular photos (you know, the other 99.999999%), no, it won't have the requisite detail. We will need to wait a many more years before they need to even begin worrying about this.
I can see it now - they will stop itemizing your bill, and if you request an itemized version, there will be a hefty fee for that. Figure out how to charge someone who tries to figure out the charges. Brilliant!!!
(For the sarcastically impaired, yes, I know federal laws and regulations require the itemization)
No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though
You did. You said, and I quote: "over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets." Who cares when the election was called by all the major news outlets?
Actually, I didn't say it and your quotes show it. You seem to be conflating "based" i.e. legally based upon, with "called" i.e. projected/determined/announced, which is why your retort is a strawman. The elections are legally based on the outcome of the electoral college vote on December 19th, where the electors are decided by the separate states based on the results of the state elections on November 8th. This is why a candidate can receive more overall votes yet still lose the election. What the news outlets do is CALL the election, sort of like an announcer does during a ball game, following all the moves and explaining the significance. In general the announcer is educated regarding how the game is played and their analysis is to be taken seriously since they have a need to be as accurate as possible to avoid losing their job or their listeners. The networks are the same - they need to provide trustworthy results so people will tune in again next election. They don't decide the election, they provide the data and analysis of what is happening, including when it appears one side has beaten the other. It is their track record since Dewey, a lesson they learned well, that make people have confidence in what they are saying. That is why when most or all of them are projecting which candidate has won, the candidates accept it since they know is a virtual certainty. It is still the electoral colleges job to make the official decision though.
So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
Well, it doesn't take that long to count votes, if you do it properly.
Maybe we don't do it properly. There are ballots still being counted in places, and it has been over two weeks since they were cast. For example, some organisations have still not called Michigan.
We generally have projections that night, sure, but who the hell cares? Lets say Fox is projecting the R will win, and CNN is projecting the D. Should both concede? What about MSNBC? Who the hell cares?
Normally, the candidates care, as do their closer supporters since they have to hit the ground running, and the longer it takes to know who won means less time to get everything setup. That was a major problem for Bush in 2000. For example, when the president changes, every single Executive White House staff position (including Executive Office Building) needs to be restaffed by the new president's team, and that is a lot of people. They only have a couple months to figure it out, while also figuring out whom to nominate for all the cabinet and other presidential appointment positions.
Regarding different networks calling a different winner, name me an example in the last 50 years of that happening. It hasn't. And even if they all somehow did got it wrong, the incorrect projections would be discovered soon after and the real winner announced (followed by a lot of press shaming), and the true winner would be voted in by the college. The incorrectly called candidate would have spent wasted time while the actual winner would be facing a shortened time to organize. But then under your system of waiting until absolute certain, the winner would have had to wait anyway, so our system is at worse like yours.
I find it interesting that you think 'actually count
Umm, correlation actually DOES imply possible causation by the common use definition of "imply", meaning synonymous with "suggests". It is only when using the logician's or statistician's definition of "imply", meaning "sufficient to require", that it isn't true. And since this is a lay discussion, the common definition is applicable, and inferring possible causation from a correlation is entirely appropriate. That being said, the summary is a misrepresentation of the actual claims and even the original author says he doesn't think hacking was the cause.
I'm glad that, I personally, live in a country where elections are based on counting ballots, not 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets.'
Also, 9 hours isn't an unreasonable delay. 8 months, like the Coleman vs Franken Senate race, was a fine example of what you're describing, though.
So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though. Of course they are legally decided by the actual vote tallies which happens later, but that doesn't stop the winner from being known before all the votes are counted. Nor does it explain why Clinton deliberately chose to go against the well-established tradition regarding giving a concession speech immediately following the election results becoming obvious. One hour, or even two hours, would be consistent with tradition, while waiting until the middle of the following day clearly is not. It is that behaviour that demonstrates her true character, or maybe just her mental and physical state at the time.
The tradition is to give a concession speech as soon as practical after it is clear you have lost. In Clinton's case, it was clear she had lost at 1:35am ET when Pennsylvania was called for Trump making it virtually impossible for her to win, but the fate was sealed at 2:30am when Wisconsin was called for Trump giving him the 270+ needed. What happened though is at 2:07am Podesta came out and told the crowd "Let’s get these votes counted and let’s bring this home” despite Trump’s victory being all but certain and only one state call away, and told the crowd to go home and there would be no speech that night. It is reported that Clinton called and congratulated Trump at or before 2:35am, just half an hour later, but still she did not offer any public speech, either in person or even by phone, until 11:40am the next morning (the speech your link is to), over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets.
I think that excessive delay is what poster was referring to. Of course, there have been reports that she was not in any reasonable shape to appear publicly by that time in the morning so it may have been more of a need to hide rather than a refusal to speak.
Either companies are honeypotting Bittorrent emissions themselves, which would be entrapment
Honeypots are not entrapment. They have not forced or coerced you into doing something you weren't setting out to do anyway. I believe the concept of entrapment can only be applied to law enforcement entities, as well.
Mostly true. To oversimplify it, entrapment is the idea that everyone has their price, so if you make something attractive enough even an honest person becomes tempted and may succumb. Joining a bittorrent swarm and seeing who else (by who I mean what IP addresses) is also in the swarm isn't in any way an enticement, let alone an unreasonable enticement, so isn't entrapment.
However, entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning the accused admits doing it but claims a mitigating factor that excuses it. This rule applies both if law enforcement does it, and if a private entity does it. You just have to convince the Court or jury that it excuses the action.
This whole thing has been a fiasco. Bad engineering. Bad public relations. Hiding their knowing that there was a problem. Being forced into a recall, and even then, botching the "fix". I am sure there are a number of people now considering if they want a Samsung phone, whether Note 7 or other, now, or ever, to reside in their pocket. This is definitely going to leave a mark.
On the flip side, Apple really appreciates that they decided to torch their sales (literally) right as the iPhone 7 was coming out. Glad Samsung decided to join team Apple.:)
I have only read the summary but I think the title is misleading. This doesn't mean people can now use Twitter for serving, just that in this one case a judge signed off on it due to circumstances.
The law spells out how a person must be served, but if you can show the Court that you couldn't do it as prescribed, you can ask the Court for permission to do it another way which is what I think happened here. They presented the Court with an argument for why they needed to use an alternative means of serving, in this case using Twitter, and the Court approved the plan. If the defendant later wants to argue they were unaware of the suit then they can, but for now it is considered a valid serving since the Court gave it its stamp of approval.
This law is a violation of 1st Amendment. Pure and simple. If I were IMDB, I wouldn't comply.
Note the law only applies if the person has a paid subscription to the site. That means the site has entered into a commercial contract with the person, and the rules then change somewhat. If IMDB wants to post ages or birthdates, the law doesn't stop them, as long as they don't accept money from the party in question. As soon as they accept money, their rights fall under contract law and are subject to other laws as set forth by statute. No one is forcing them to accept the person's money.
Think of it like a person rents an apartment. Before they rent, there is a big political sign on the apartment's windows, which the renter doesn't want on HIS window. Having a law saying the tenant can decide what, if any, information is posted on the window isn't a violation of the building owner's first amendment rights, since the contract has shifted aspects of control of the property. Having a law that says if you CHOOSE to offer a certain service, like the ability to modify information about you on a website, then other requirements also come into play, such as the ability to decide whether an age/birthdate are included, is permitted and isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that is close to how a lot of drug research is done. 1) Create new drug, 2) throw at a lot of cultures to see what effect it has on any of them, 3) follow up where an effect is observed, 4) market. For example, Rogaine was originally developed to treat ulcers and hypertension, and Viagra to treat hypertension and mild heart problems, and look where they went.
Then to fool the AI, all you need is an AI program to drive the mouse to mimic the original person.
In all likelihood, she probably didn't even know about the watermarks, let alone considered how to defeat them.
I think we have a priori evidence of that!
How can someone work for the NSA and NOT be aware that they track everything?
She didn't work for the NSA; so was employed by a contractor that provides classified translation services, and apparently for that work had access to the NSA's network (either NSANet or JWICS since SIPRnet is only secret). Not realizing they track shows she isn't terribly bright.
If I was an NSA leaker, I certainly wouldn't be e-mailing my leaks from my work computer/e-mail account. I'd set up a throwaway account (and even then would be looking over my shoulder every second).
OK, she is VERY dumb. And I agree with your tactics - as a good first measure, but nowhere near all I would do.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you cite aren't problems and have few dissenters, but what happens when schools start setting rules for admission based on controversial criteria?
You make statements against imposing Sharia Law? You Islamophobe - no admission!
You make statements that [pick a former US president] did things that hurt the U.S.? You anti-American - no admission!
You are registered as a [pick a party]? You engage in wrong-think - no admission!
As lgw said, it is legal for a school to do all of these things. I am not advocating passing laws forbidding the school's right to set such rules, just pointing out the dangers of the slope that often appears.
It is a private institution [...] SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have.
Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. There are still anti-discrimination laws private institutions must follow, so for example a whites only or blacks only college is illegal under federal law. Also, Harvard receives federal funding which, despite being a private college, makes them subject to a slew of other laws controlling what criteria they can use to admit students.
I think the problem lgw was referring to is the slippery slope. This sets the precedent for them to go after things they disagree with. Today it is the students being assholes (in most people's eyes), but what will it be tomorrow? Nothing is stopping them from doing it for the things lgw said.
It's like the issue right now with "hate speech". There are groups calling for banning it, but what is it? If you let people ban it for one form of comments a group finds objectionable, why can't another group later use it ban things most don't see a problem with? After all, to that group it represents hate, so who are you to say it shouldn't be banned? Don't laugh, it is already happening.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
The 5th amendment gives you the right to not testify and provide proof of your own guilt through direct testimony.
The Fifth Amendment gives you the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, or to quote it, for one "to be a witness against himself". Note the wording. You can be compelled to testify, just not as a witness against yourself. What is well established in precedent is this means you cannot be forced to provide testimony that would prove your guilt, but you can be forced to testify about facts not in dispute, like the combination to the safe in your home that people have seen you open, or the passcode to your phone. That isn't deemed to be testifying against oneself.
The issue here though is the person claims he gave the passcode but the police say it doesn't work, so is he lying, or isn't he? The Court thinks he is lying, which is a separate crime, so he gets to spend some quality time in the care of the state.
It doesn't give you the right to hide evidence.
There is no legal right to hide evidence, but unless the state can prove you know where the evidence is, there is no legal right to compel you to disclose its location. It is extremely hard to prove what someone knows, versus what you think they probably know, so this becomes a very hard bar to overcome for the state.
A more apt metaphor might be refusing to provide access to a safety deposit box, or open a home safe. Both of those can be physically forced with the right tools and a court order.
The analogy is flawed but comes close to the problem being faced by the legal system. That problem being in the physical world the safe can be forced open, but such ability may not exist for a cryptographically protected "vault". The legal system is still trying to figure out how to deal with this issue without unduly prejudicing the defendant. Remember, in the legal system rights are weighted against each other, and the state (i.e. the embodiment of the people) has rights too, so it becomes a test of which right outweighs the other.
Load an app on your phone that will wipe the thing if a certain passcode is entered.
That would be obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence, so then it becomes which is worse, the penalties for destruction, or the penalties for the crime being investigated.
How about a low-tech solution of blocking the visible-under-the-windshield VIN with a piece of paper? Is that legal? It seems like it would help reduce the problems, or at least make the thieves more inclined to move on to a different vehicle.
In California it is illegal, but you can use the CA DMV website to look up the VIN if you have the license plate number, so covering the VIN would just add one more step for the crooks.
There's your main problem right there.
If you look you will find that a lot of car hoods can be opened by inserting the right tool through the grill to access the locking mechanism. It's a lot like how a slim jim can get you in through the door.
I doubt the gang did the hacking. There is probably a person or group who figured out how to do this hack, then sold the info and devices with instructions to the gang who used it. It's a lot like hackers of old versus script kiddies today. A couple decades ago to hack a system normally meant the hacker had the skills and understanding, but today it is often just a person who knows how to run a program that someone else wrote.
I'm betting news articles for certain viewpoints will contain "helpful" alternative viewpoint links, while articles with favored viewpoints won't have any links to "other perspectives on the topic". Yep, no way this can't be abused.
No, it won't.
Instead people will ask on board and will be pointed to the backdoor.
The internet treats such things as damage and simply routes around them.
Well, to use a car analogy, there is road construction near me right now. The businesses on the other side of the construction are significantly closer than the ones in the other direction, but I still prefer to avoid the hassle of dealing with the special twists and turns to get to my preferred places, and instead go to the farther ones since they are easier to get to.
Fact - people are lazy animals, and if you put obstacles in front of them, the vast majority of them look for the path of least resistance, even if it yields an inferior result. Blocks like this one aren't designed to block everyone, just make it painful enough that a large number won't hassle with a workaround, and because of human nature, it normally works.
Someone puts a chain and lock across the front door of a business. But the place has a backdoor down a poorly lit alley that is still open and accessible, so IF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT AND KNOW HOW TO GET THERE they can still get in. Do you think the blocked front door will cause some, maybe most, visitors to go away instead of looking for another way in?
Haven't read the article, but this would only work if you have a high enough resolution camera that takes the picture from a close enough distance, and what focal stop is also a consideration. Basically, if the person is wielding a 40 megapixel camera zoomed in to your face and hands (peace sign) then maybe. For regular photos (you know, the other 99.999999%), no, it won't have the requisite detail. We will need to wait a many more years before they need to even begin worrying about this.
I can see it now - they will stop itemizing your bill, and if you request an itemized version, there will be a hefty fee for that. Figure out how to charge someone who tries to figure out the charges. Brilliant!!!
(For the sarcastically impaired, yes, I know federal laws and regulations require the itemization)
You did. You said, and I quote: "over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets." Who cares when the election was called by all the major news outlets?
Actually, I didn't say it and your quotes show it. You seem to be conflating "based" i.e. legally based upon, with "called" i.e. projected/determined/announced, which is why your retort is a strawman. The elections are legally based on the outcome of the electoral college vote on December 19th, where the electors are decided by the separate states based on the results of the state elections on November 8th. This is why a candidate can receive more overall votes yet still lose the election. What the news outlets do is CALL the election, sort of like an announcer does during a ball game, following all the moves and explaining the significance. In general the announcer is educated regarding how the game is played and their analysis is to be taken seriously since they have a need to be as accurate as possible to avoid losing their job or their listeners. The networks are the same - they need to provide trustworthy results so people will tune in again next election. They don't decide the election, they provide the data and analysis of what is happening, including when it appears one side has beaten the other. It is their track record since Dewey, a lesson they learned well, that make people have confidence in what they are saying. That is why when most or all of them are projecting which candidate has won, the candidates accept it since they know is a virtual certainty. It is still the electoral colleges job to make the official decision though.
Well, it doesn't take that long to count votes, if you do it properly.
Maybe we don't do it properly. There are ballots still being counted in places, and it has been over two weeks since they were cast. For example, some organisations have still not called Michigan.
We generally have projections that night, sure, but who the hell cares? Lets say Fox is projecting the R will win, and CNN is projecting the D. Should both concede? What about MSNBC? Who the hell cares?
Normally, the candidates care, as do their closer supporters since they have to hit the ground running, and the longer it takes to know who won means less time to get everything setup. That was a major problem for Bush in 2000. For example, when the president changes, every single Executive White House staff position (including Executive Office Building) needs to be restaffed by the new president's team, and that is a lot of people. They only have a couple months to figure it out, while also figuring out whom to nominate for all the cabinet and other presidential appointment positions.
Regarding different networks calling a different winner, name me an example in the last 50 years of that happening. It hasn't. And even if they all somehow did got it wrong, the incorrect projections would be discovered soon after and the real winner announced (followed by a lot of press shaming), and the true winner would be voted in by the college. The incorrectly called candidate would have spent wasted time while the actual winner would be facing a shortened time to organize. But then under your system of waiting until absolute certain, the winner would have had to wait anyway, so our system is at worse like yours.
I find it interesting that you think 'actually count
Does not imply causation.
Umm, correlation actually DOES imply possible causation by the common use definition of "imply", meaning synonymous with "suggests". It is only when using the logician's or statistician's definition of "imply", meaning "sufficient to require", that it isn't true. And since this is a lay discussion, the common definition is applicable, and inferring possible causation from a correlation is entirely appropriate. That being said, the summary is a misrepresentation of the actual claims and even the original author says he doesn't think hacking was the cause.
I'm glad that, I personally, live in a country where elections are based on counting ballots, not 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets.'
Also, 9 hours isn't an unreasonable delay. 8 months, like the Coleman vs Franken Senate race, was a fine example of what you're describing, though.
So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though. Of course they are legally decided by the actual vote tallies which happens later, but that doesn't stop the winner from being known before all the votes are counted. Nor does it explain why Clinton deliberately chose to go against the well-established tradition regarding giving a concession speech immediately following the election results becoming obvious. One hour, or even two hours, would be consistent with tradition, while waiting until the middle of the following day clearly is not. It is that behaviour that demonstrates her true character, or maybe just her mental and physical state at the time.
Well, not giving a defeat speech is a little out of "best standard".
Oh really..I suppose the liberal media just staged this whole event then?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/...
The tradition is to give a concession speech as soon as practical after it is clear you have lost. In Clinton's case, it was clear she had lost at 1:35am ET when Pennsylvania was called for Trump making it virtually impossible for her to win, but the fate was sealed at 2:30am when Wisconsin was called for Trump giving him the 270+ needed. What happened though is at 2:07am Podesta came out and told the crowd "Let’s get these votes counted and let’s bring this home” despite Trump’s victory being all but certain and only one state call away, and told the crowd to go home and there would be no speech that night. It is reported that Clinton called and congratulated Trump at or before 2:35am, just half an hour later, but still she did not offer any public speech, either in person or even by phone, until 11:40am the next morning (the speech your link is to), over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets.
I think that excessive delay is what poster was referring to. Of course, there have been reports that she was not in any reasonable shape to appear publicly by that time in the morning so it may have been more of a need to hide rather than a refusal to speak.
Either companies are honeypotting Bittorrent emissions themselves, which would be entrapment
Honeypots are not entrapment. They have not forced or coerced you into doing something you weren't setting out to do anyway. I believe the concept of entrapment can only be applied to law enforcement entities, as well.
Mostly true. To oversimplify it, entrapment is the idea that everyone has their price, so if you make something attractive enough even an honest person becomes tempted and may succumb. Joining a bittorrent swarm and seeing who else (by who I mean what IP addresses) is also in the swarm isn't in any way an enticement, let alone an unreasonable enticement, so isn't entrapment.
However, entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning the accused admits doing it but claims a mitigating factor that excuses it. This rule applies both if law enforcement does it, and if a private entity does it. You just have to convince the Court or jury that it excuses the action.
And if they pump in 1.21 Gigawatts, they're going to see some serious shit!
This whole thing has been a fiasco. Bad engineering. Bad public relations. Hiding their knowing that there was a problem. Being forced into a recall, and even then, botching the "fix". I am sure there are a number of people now considering if they want a Samsung phone, whether Note 7 or other, now, or ever, to reside in their pocket. This is definitely going to leave a mark.
On the flip side, Apple really appreciates that they decided to torch their sales (literally) right as the iPhone 7 was coming out. Glad Samsung decided to join team Apple. :)
I have only read the summary but I think the title is misleading. This doesn't mean people can now use Twitter for serving, just that in this one case a judge signed off on it due to circumstances.
The law spells out how a person must be served, but if you can show the Court that you couldn't do it as prescribed, you can ask the Court for permission to do it another way which is what I think happened here. They presented the Court with an argument for why they needed to use an alternative means of serving, in this case using Twitter, and the Court approved the plan. If the defendant later wants to argue they were unaware of the suit then they can, but for now it is considered a valid serving since the Court gave it its stamp of approval.
This law is a violation of 1st Amendment. Pure and simple. If I were IMDB, I wouldn't comply.
Note the law only applies if the person has a paid subscription to the site. That means the site has entered into a commercial contract with the person, and the rules then change somewhat. If IMDB wants to post ages or birthdates, the law doesn't stop them, as long as they don't accept money from the party in question. As soon as they accept money, their rights fall under contract law and are subject to other laws as set forth by statute. No one is forcing them to accept the person's money.
Think of it like a person rents an apartment. Before they rent, there is a big political sign on the apartment's windows, which the renter doesn't want on HIS window. Having a law saying the tenant can decide what, if any, information is posted on the window isn't a violation of the building owner's first amendment rights, since the contract has shifted aspects of control of the property. Having a law that says if you CHOOSE to offer a certain service, like the ability to modify information about you on a website, then other requirements also come into play, such as the ability to decide whether an age/birthdate are included, is permitted and isn't a violation of the First Amendment.