I went to school with a number of Muslim students. They didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I was actually in a study group with a couple of them for one semester. And at least one of them routinely ignored the Koran's prohibition on drinking.
I worked with at least one Muslim co-worker at my last job. He didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I had a number of Muslim customers (including at least one who converted to Islam). None of them attacked me, or condemned me, or anything like that.
There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in the U.S. I think we would have noticed if most of them were routinely attacking Christians.
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
What was your point again?
Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, we shouldn't base the entirety of our behavior models on books over 1000 years old. I'm just saying....
I want to say that there are a couple religions that hold marriage ceremonies between dead people already.
But, okay, that aside....
Who cares? So what if someone marries a robot? What skin off your nose is it? What, is it some bullshit about how it makes your marriage worth less than it was before because someone else got married in a way you disagree with?
I never said he had the power to do it. Just that he would promise it. You may have noticed that politicians promise all kinds of things that they are actually unable to do. And Trump is very bad about promising all kinds of things, and then walking back from those statements.
Hell, Trump _did_ promise coal miners that the jobs would come back. And they won't, for the reasons you mentioned.
Just watch, Trump's response will either to be to continue to complain about the wind farm near his golf course in Scotland, or to promise that we're going to open more coal powered plants. Or both.
Or he'll get distracted and pissed because a B-list celebrity said something mean about him.
1. The relevance is that Rick Perry is a thundering idiot who wanted to get rid of the Department of Energy when he was running for President in 2012 BUT COULDN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT.
2. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
I'd say research is part of "general welfare".
Government funded research has led to a lot of breakthroughs and improvements in technology. Better water purification, GPS, the space program....
The actual number of jobs 'saved' is around 730. Trump was claiming about 300 jobs that weren't going to Mexico to begin with.
Furthermore, Carrier is getting paid $7 million to keep those jobs in the U.S. That's not exactly a sustainable method of retaining a U.S. workforce. Nor is it necessarily a desirable one. How many more companies are going to line up for a payout to keep jobs in the U.S., now that they know it's an option that the President-elect could take?
And let's get something straight. Trump doesn't give a shit one way or the other about illegal immigration. It was a talking point, nothing more. He's already been backing off the proposal for a border wall AND he's already been backing off full deportation of illegal/undocumented immigrants.
Illegal immigration numbers have been going down for years. Current estimates have it at the lowest it's been since 2003.
I would point out, Trump is also the guy whose clothing line is not made in the U.S., who has bought Chinese steel for his projects because it was cheaper than buying U.S. steel, and generally goes for whatever makes him the most money. He's not really concerned about saving U.S. jobs (or at least not more than any other politician).
Trump's sole interest is Trump. He will do whatever he thinks will get him the most out of it. If that happens to correspond to saving U.S. jobs, it's a coincidence.
I mean, okay, Eichenwald (or rather, his lawyer) requested the user info for the person who sent the seizure-inducing gif. Twitter acquiesced to the request. But that isn't necessarily identifying the person.
I mean, yes, Twitter has mechanics in place to verify the accounts of celebrities and politicians, etc. However, as far as I am aware, there's nothing stopping someone from using a throw-away email account and fake information from creating a Twitter account.
What Eichenwald and his lawyer have now is _that_ information. Maybe the person used their real name to sign up for Twitter. Maybe they didn't.
Regardless, now they have to show that not only was this the person who did this, it wasn't someone who hacked their account. (Hence the ISP IP logs and so forth.)
And I still don't think it counts as doxxing as until it enters part of a legal record AND assuming it doesn't end up being sealed, it's not like the legal record gets broadcast either.
I mean, sure, you can access criminal and civil court records (unless they've been sealed), but if you broadcast that info, you're doing the doxxing, not the legal system, and not one of the parties to the civil or criminal case.
I mean the victim (I have to use some term for the person 10 feet away that's being swung at) could decline to press charges, or the prosecution could say that there's not a case to be had, and thus no point in taking it to court.
The police could say it's not worth arresting the person doing the swinging (although if you are publicly drunk and it's not St. Patrick's Day/Cinco De Mayo/New Year's Eve, then they will arrest you).
There's no clear-cut answer.
Now, all that assumes it's just a bare-knuckle punch-up. If weapons get involved, it gets much more serious and the police are much less likely to shrug it away that the aggressor was not within striking range.
I should note: I am not a lawyer. A lot of what I said is from either rooming with a law student or talking with cops.
Again, they (Twitter) are not doxxing the person who did this. They are providing information as part of a legal request. They are not broadcasting the information that they are providing.
Doxxing is generally considered to be the gathering AND broadcasting of personal information. Well, Twitter gathers that as part of signing up to Twitter. You have to provide them with some information. I don't recall exactly what you have to provide them. I first got a Twitter account a few years ago, and my memory is notoriously bad. But, as I recall, you at least have to provide an email address and (possibly) a name. Twitter also has verified accounts, typically for celebrities and political figures.
So yeah, Twitter gather the information. They don't broadcast it. They don't go "@thisUser is really Danielle T. Example of 11 Test Drive". And they specifically are not broadcasting the user information of the person who sent the seizure-inducing tweet. They provided it under a legal request.
They could have fought it. They decided not to do so. But that doesn't make it doxxing.
Depends on the state. South Carolina, for example, defines it as follows:
"Misdemeanor assault and battery involves causing injury or threatening or attempting to cause injury to another. Assault and battery that causes severe injury or that occurs in the course of certain other criminal conduct is a felony. (S.C. Code Ann. Â 16-3-600.)"
So, swinging and missing would be a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (but not causing severe injury) is still a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (and causing severe injury) is a felony.
Having a Twitter account is not mandatory. You choose to have one, and you allowed access to their system under their Terms of Service (TOS). While I'm willing to bet that there's some standard boilerplate in there about who Twitter will or won't grant sell their user-list to, that's not what is happening here.
Twitter is not doxxing whichever dimwit did this. They are providing user records under a legal request. They are not broadcasting, far and wide, "Hey, the Twitter user @dumbshit is really Joe Q. Smith, and here's his address."
Oh, and because you have to fill out a form to get your porn access filter removed, I'm sure that will never be used for any sort of blackmail purposes (political or otherwise) as South Carolina has just a spectacular history of keeping citizen records away from prying eyes.
And of course, in a show of patriotism, Trump took less profits by moving his clothing line back to U.S. production. What's that? He didn't? I'm shocked.
Did you consider that a lot of the comments that are critical of Musk are ad hominem attacks made by ACs, and therefore offer little to nothing to the conversation, and therefore deserve to get down-voted?
As of a 2010 study, people in the U.S. who identify as Muslim comprised about 0.9% of the population. As of a further study in 2016, it was up to a whopping 1.0%.
However, the perception of what percent of the population is Muslim pegs it slightly north of 15%. Which then leads to people making all kinds of erroneous assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, he was referring to Mexican immigrants. He's still a bigot.
Was that before or after he called all Mexicans criminals? (You know, where he ended with "And some, I assume, are good people.")
Was that before or after he said he wanted to create a registry for an entire religion? (Which he's since flip-flopped on.)
Yeah, I'm not sure at all (sarcasm intended) where he got this rep for being a bigot.
I'm pretty sure both books are routinely ignored.
I went to school with a number of Muslim students. They didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I was actually in a study group with a couple of them for one semester. And at least one of them routinely ignored the Koran's prohibition on drinking.
I worked with at least one Muslim co-worker at my last job. He didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I had a number of Muslim customers (including at least one who converted to Islam). None of them attacked me, or condemned me, or anything like that.
There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in the U.S. I think we would have noticed if most of them were routinely attacking Christians.
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
What was your point again?
Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, we shouldn't base the entirety of our behavior models on books over 1000 years old. I'm just saying....
I want to say that there are a couple religions that hold marriage ceremonies between dead people already.
But, okay, that aside....
Who cares? So what if someone marries a robot? What skin off your nose is it? What, is it some bullshit about how it makes your marriage worth less than it was before because someone else got married in a way you disagree with?
Also, let's be fair, the typo is a direct quote from the article.
I never said he had the power to do it. Just that he would promise it. You may have noticed that politicians promise all kinds of things that they are actually unable to do. And Trump is very bad about promising all kinds of things, and then walking back from those statements.
Hell, Trump _did_ promise coal miners that the jobs would come back. And they won't, for the reasons you mentioned.
Just watch, Trump's response will either to be to continue to complain about the wind farm near his golf course in Scotland, or to promise that we're going to open more coal powered plants. Or both.
Or he'll get distracted and pissed because a B-list celebrity said something mean about him.
1. The relevance is that Rick Perry is a thundering idiot who wanted to get rid of the Department of Energy when he was running for President in 2012 BUT COULDN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT.
2. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
I'd say research is part of "general welfare".
Government funded research has led to a lot of breakthroughs and improvements in technology. Better water purification, GPS, the space program....
The actual number of jobs 'saved' is around 730. Trump was claiming about 300 jobs that weren't going to Mexico to begin with.
Furthermore, Carrier is getting paid $7 million to keep those jobs in the U.S. That's not exactly a sustainable method of retaining a U.S. workforce. Nor is it necessarily a desirable one. How many more companies are going to line up for a payout to keep jobs in the U.S., now that they know it's an option that the President-elect could take?
And let's get something straight. Trump doesn't give a shit one way or the other about illegal immigration. It was a talking point, nothing more. He's already been backing off the proposal for a border wall AND he's already been backing off full deportation of illegal/undocumented immigrants.
Illegal immigration numbers have been going down for years. Current estimates have it at the lowest it's been since 2003.
And his Secretary of Energy pick got a D in a class called Meat Science.
And his pick to run the OMB questions whether we need publicly funded scientific research.
Frankly, Trump's cabinet is worse than he is. Trump at least can be distracted by an SNL skit.
I would point out, Trump is also the guy whose clothing line is not made in the U.S., who has bought Chinese steel for his projects because it was cheaper than buying U.S. steel, and generally goes for whatever makes him the most money. He's not really concerned about saving U.S. jobs (or at least not more than any other politician).
Trump's sole interest is Trump. He will do whatever he thinks will get him the most out of it. If that happens to correspond to saving U.S. jobs, it's a coincidence.
Is this even at the ISP stage, though?
I mean, okay, Eichenwald (or rather, his lawyer) requested the user info for the person who sent the seizure-inducing gif. Twitter acquiesced to the request. But that isn't necessarily identifying the person.
I mean, yes, Twitter has mechanics in place to verify the accounts of celebrities and politicians, etc. However, as far as I am aware, there's nothing stopping someone from using a throw-away email account and fake information from creating a Twitter account.
What Eichenwald and his lawyer have now is _that_ information. Maybe the person used their real name to sign up for Twitter. Maybe they didn't.
Regardless, now they have to show that not only was this the person who did this, it wasn't someone who hacked their account. (Hence the ISP IP logs and so forth.)
And I still don't think it counts as doxxing as until it enters part of a legal record AND assuming it doesn't end up being sealed, it's not like the legal record gets broadcast either.
I mean, sure, you can access criminal and civil court records (unless they've been sealed), but if you broadcast that info, you're doing the doxxing, not the legal system, and not one of the parties to the civil or criminal case.
Depends on a lot of factors, really.
I mean the victim (I have to use some term for the person 10 feet away that's being swung at) could decline to press charges, or the prosecution could say that there's not a case to be had, and thus no point in taking it to court.
The police could say it's not worth arresting the person doing the swinging (although if you are publicly drunk and it's not St. Patrick's Day/Cinco De Mayo/New Year's Eve, then they will arrest you).
There's no clear-cut answer.
Now, all that assumes it's just a bare-knuckle punch-up. If weapons get involved, it gets much more serious and the police are much less likely to shrug it away that the aggressor was not within striking range.
I should note: I am not a lawyer. A lot of what I said is from either rooming with a law student or talking with cops.
Or maybe Twitter's lawyers and PR people realized that it would really bad press and/or bad for the stock price for the company to fight this.
It's not some left/right dichotomy here.
Again, they (Twitter) are not doxxing the person who did this. They are providing information as part of a legal request. They are not broadcasting the information that they are providing.
Doxxing is generally considered to be the gathering AND broadcasting of personal information. Well, Twitter gathers that as part of signing up to Twitter. You have to provide them with some information. I don't recall exactly what you have to provide them. I first got a Twitter account a few years ago, and my memory is notoriously bad. But, as I recall, you at least have to provide an email address and (possibly) a name. Twitter also has verified accounts, typically for celebrities and political figures.
So yeah, Twitter gather the information. They don't broadcast it. They don't go "@thisUser is really Danielle T. Example of 11 Test Drive". And they specifically are not broadcasting the user information of the person who sent the seizure-inducing tweet. They provided it under a legal request.
They could have fought it. They decided not to do so. But that doesn't make it doxxing.
Depends on the state. South Carolina, for example, defines it as follows:
"Misdemeanor assault and battery involves causing injury or threatening or attempting to cause injury to another. Assault and battery that causes severe injury or that occurs in the course of certain other criminal conduct is a felony. (S.C. Code Ann. Â 16-3-600.)"
So, swinging and missing would be a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (but not causing severe injury) is still a misdemeanor, swinging and connecting (and causing severe injury) is a felony.
Having a Twitter account is not mandatory. You choose to have one, and you allowed access to their system under their Terms of Service (TOS). While I'm willing to bet that there's some standard boilerplate in there about who Twitter will or won't grant sell their user-list to, that's not what is happening here.
Twitter is not doxxing whichever dimwit did this. They are providing user records under a legal request. They are not broadcasting, far and wide, "Hey, the Twitter user @dumbshit is really Joe Q. Smith, and here's his address."
Oh, and because you have to fill out a form to get your porn access filter removed, I'm sure that will never be used for any sort of blackmail purposes (political or otherwise) as South Carolina has just a spectacular history of keeping citizen records away from prying eyes.
Putting them in "good company" with every other politician who has proposed legislation concerning internet content or computers.
And of course, in a show of patriotism, Trump took less profits by moving his clothing line back to U.S. production. What's that? He didn't? I'm shocked.
Did you consider that a lot of the comments that are critical of Musk are ad hominem attacks made by ACs, and therefore offer little to nothing to the conversation, and therefore deserve to get down-voted?
As of a 2010 study, people in the U.S. who identify as Muslim comprised about 0.9% of the population. As of a further study in 2016, it was up to a whopping 1.0%.
However, the perception of what percent of the population is Muslim pegs it slightly north of 15%. Which then leads to people making all kinds of erroneous assumptions.
Paperweight for documents you really don't care about.
Pocket hand warmer (bandages not included).
Plate for your Hot Pocket.
Actually, in 2013, it's estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes.