Eh, nobody's going to pay for maps of dead bodies. I'm more interested in buying maps of houses with very expensive TVs. Preferably if the house doesn't have a gun safe.
they are not entitled to distribute any of the resulting products
If I steal a hammer and use it to build a house, the extent of punishment for stealing the hammer is a year or so in jail and/or paying for the hammer plus a fine. Home Depot can't tear down the house or stop people from living in it.
If I get a sale Ford fender stamping machine and started to sell fenders
Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but you're describing every third party aftermarket part maker ever. Unless you are stamping "Ford" onto the fender, then you're violating trademark law.
It takes two to tango. Maybe the company shouldn't have signed a contract it didn't understand required it to keep records of who owed how much to whom.
> On the odd occasion windows 10 will refuse to read shares and the only way to fix it is to restart windows.
I get this on windows 8.1 after my laptop sleeps. I can see the freenas server in the "Network" in File Manager, but clicking on it or trying to access a share on it gets me a time out and the useless generic "not found" error until I reboot.
On what grounds? I'm having a hard time seeing how you're managing to draw an equivalence between the government being forbidden to stop you from filming a cop, and you being allowed to kill someone without repercussions just because you filmed it. You're free to film all the murders you want, but murdering someone is still illegal, and your film will be used in court against you, where you will be facing a charge of "murder," not "filming a murder". I just don't see how you're getting from "ok to film cops" to "ok to kill people if you film it," unless your camera literally "shoots film" at the muzzle velocity of a colt.45 and you are actually killing the cops you are filming (which would still be murder and therefore illegal).
What makes it "unlawful"?
That's actually a really good question. For cops, anyway. It appears that for some reason the UMCJ has a whole hell of a lot to say about what makes an order unlawful.
In absence of an actual definition that applies to cops, consider for starters court rulings (like this one!) indicating that per the amended Constitution, the government cannot compel you to stop filming a cop, presumably subject to the same limitations that have been placed on other First Amendment rights such as "imminent lawless action" (such as murdering someone! Or more realistically, getting between the cop and the arrestee so the arrestee can evade arrest). Given that, may I suggest that orders that are unconstitutional are unlawful?
But hey, who knows. Maybe the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that says "well, we've decided that cops are obscene and therefore films of cops are not protected by the First Amendment."
you would've defended all articles of the Bill of Rights equally
For the record, I'm pro-gun. I'm also pro-recording because I believe that being able to document what is occurring is vital, whether that recording is used for headlining, editorializing, blogging, or just to create a personal record of events. ALL of which I believe should count as speech, whether published publicly or privately.
Why should they be protected when they have nothing to do with recording things for news? If you wanted to not wag your tongue at strawmen, you'd come up with a relevant example like calling the swat team on an innocent victim for the purpose of recording the results. In which case, filing a false police report is illegal, filming it would not be.
As for playing Nightcrawler, here's a handy guide for you:
murdering people
illegal
Faces of Death
tasteless but legal
Can they then be charged for such defiance?
No, it is an unlawful order, and people should not be punished for defying that order. If you think otherwise, then maybe I should become a cop and go around ordering people to become my slave. If they cite some constitutional mumbo jumbo at me, then I can arrest them for defying my order and then enslave them as per the 13th Amendment.
why not the Second
Because liberals hate it duh.
continuously ignore the daily trampling of the Second?
Because conservatives are too busy fondling their guns to form a Conservative Civil Liberties Union to defend all of our rights as American Citizens, and would rather donate to the NRA, whine about the ACLU, and insist that nothing else should be done until after the government has gone off the deep end, when they will finally get around to taking their pea shooters and doing something about it.
So there is a lane of slow traffic waiting to get off trying to weave through the lane of slow traffic trying to get onto the freeway
As opposed to how they do it in Texas, where the entrance comes first and the lane of traffic trying to get onto the freeway is completely blocked off by the lane of traffic stopped in the freeway waiting for the light (at the intersection at the end of the exit ramp) to turn green so they can get off.
The key is in collecting them from the openssh client/key agent memory between the time you enter the passphrase to decrypt it, and the time it's eventually unloaded from RAM.
That's not the error here, the error here is that "0day" is ignored, leaving the service to run as the default user "root". It could just as easily been "3day" or "nоbody" and the service would have run as root.
You seem to have a twisted idea of "popular". The vast majority of people run Windows. Of the tiny fraction that's left, the vast majority doesn't give a shit because it isn't causing a problem for them. The only people we hear about against it are the ones who have been bitten by the issues in it and faced nothing but frustration getting them fixed thanks to Pottering's view that if systemd doesn't work, it's the rest of the universe's fault, and therefore the rest of the universe MUST be changed to fix it. Whether that is network filesystem issues that have lingered for years because Pottering insists that ALL network devices must be turned off before turning off the computer, or this bug where invalid usernames bypass all the other checks and run as root.
Which, btw, isn't limited to just usernames starting with a digit. Because the "invalid username" check disables the User= option, it therefore also bypasses the "username exists" check. Therefore, it could also include code you copy off Stack Overflow which appears to run a service as "User=nobody" but "nobody" is actually written with Cyrillic "nоbody" and is therefore invalid.
FIND OUT WHAT PART OF GOVERNMENT IS CAUSING THE MONOPOLY IN YOUR AREA AND FIX IT.
Honestly? It's the part that will arrest me if I just go steal spools of fiber off of trucks, or if I enslave people to dig trenches for free.
Google Fiber was expected to spend $10 billion on installing fiber in the neighborhoods they were welcomed into with wide open arms and special government treatment (Kansas City cost over $1 billion alone). How many other companies have billions of dollars just lying around? Not only that, but we saw the local ISPs immediately cut costs and boost bandwidth in those regions to remain competitive. How many investors are going to hand you a billion dollars to compete in one city where the incumbent will immediately undercut you by leveraging their revenue from across the country to take a loss where you're trying to compete?
Like what should have happened with phone lines in the 90s
Uh, that DID happen. Then the phone lines were "deregulated" around 2005 by removing the requirement that the phone companies share the lines with their competitors, and all the DSL providers got the boot.
It's trusted by the browser by default, so it has that going for it.
Also, unlike self-signed certs it demonstrates that the person requesting the cert has control over the hostname(s), which is pretty much all I ever had to do when I paid for a non-EV certificate.
Trump's new "internet tax", whatever that is, is absolutely something to do with technology, even if it's some fake tax he's dreamed up while drinking his covfefe.
But that was what the switches were for! If you got tired of playing Combat with tanks 1-on-1, you could play Combat with 3 tanks versus 3 tanks! Or 3 tanks versus 1 fat tank! Not good enough? How about Combat with planes!
There was no "Discovered" about it, they claimed that he sold his shares because he must have known that the government would retaliate against his refusal to perform illegal wiretaps (yes, if you pass a law making it legal after the fact, then you are admitting that they were illegal at the time) by canceling their contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, nobody's going to pay for maps of dead bodies. I'm more interested in buying maps of houses with very expensive TVs. Preferably if the house doesn't have a gun safe.
If I steal a hammer and use it to build a house, the extent of punishment for stealing the hammer is a year or so in jail and/or paying for the hammer plus a fine. Home Depot can't tear down the house or stop people from living in it.
Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but you're describing every third party aftermarket part maker ever. Unless you are stamping "Ford" onto the fender, then you're violating trademark law.
TIL every Disney film comes with the animation software used to make it embedded in it.
It takes two to tango. Maybe the company shouldn't have signed a contract it didn't understand required it to keep records of who owed how much to whom.
> On the odd occasion windows 10 will refuse to read shares and the only way to fix it is to restart windows.
I get this on windows 8.1 after my laptop sleeps. I can see the freenas server in the "Network" in File Manager, but clicking on it or trying to access a share on it gets me a time out and the useless generic "not found" error until I reboot.
On what grounds, if not the First Amendment then?
On what grounds? I'm having a hard time seeing how you're managing to draw an equivalence between the government being forbidden to stop you from filming a cop, and you being allowed to kill someone without repercussions just because you filmed it. You're free to film all the murders you want, but murdering someone is still illegal, and your film will be used in court against you, where you will be facing a charge of "murder," not "filming a murder". I just don't see how you're getting from "ok to film cops" to "ok to kill people if you film it," unless your camera literally "shoots film" at the muzzle velocity of a colt .45 and you are actually killing the cops you are filming (which would still be murder and therefore illegal).
That's actually a really good question. For cops, anyway. It appears that for some reason the UMCJ has a whole hell of a lot to say about what makes an order unlawful.
In absence of an actual definition that applies to cops, consider for starters court rulings (like this one!) indicating that per the amended Constitution, the government cannot compel you to stop filming a cop, presumably subject to the same limitations that have been placed on other First Amendment rights such as "imminent lawless action" (such as murdering someone! Or more realistically, getting between the cop and the arrestee so the arrestee can evade arrest). Given that, may I suggest that orders that are unconstitutional are unlawful?
But hey, who knows. Maybe the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that says "well, we've decided that cops are obscene and therefore films of cops are not protected by the First Amendment."
For the record, I'm pro-gun. I'm also pro-recording because I believe that being able to document what is occurring is vital, whether that recording is used for headlining, editorializing, blogging, or just to create a personal record of events. ALL of which I believe should count as speech, whether published publicly or privately.
Why should they be protected when they have nothing to do with recording things for news? If you wanted to not wag your tongue at strawmen, you'd come up with a relevant example like calling the swat team on an innocent victim for the purpose of recording the results. In which case, filing a false police report is illegal, filming it would not be.
As for playing Nightcrawler, here's a handy guide for you:
murdering people illegal Faces of Death tasteless but legalNo, it is an unlawful order, and people should not be punished for defying that order. If you think otherwise, then maybe I should become a cop and go around ordering people to become my slave. If they cite some constitutional mumbo jumbo at me, then I can arrest them for defying my order and then enslave them as per the 13th Amendment.
Because liberals hate it duh.
Because conservatives are too busy fondling their guns to form a Conservative Civil Liberties Union to defend all of our rights as American Citizens, and would rather donate to the NRA, whine about the ACLU, and insist that nothing else should be done until after the government has gone off the deep end, when they will finally get around to taking their pea shooters and doing something about it.
As opposed to how they do it in Texas, where the entrance comes first and the lane of traffic trying to get onto the freeway is completely blocked off by the lane of traffic stopped in the freeway waiting for the light (at the intersection at the end of the exit ramp) to turn green so they can get off.
The key is in collecting them from the openssh client/key agent memory between the time you enter the passphrase to decrypt it, and the time it's eventually unloaded from RAM.
Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome shitposter.
Wrong. His claim is that stabbing a robot should be legal.
Not if you're a burnt-out washout.
Wow, I'll have to keep that in mind when I'm writing custom unit files for our company's services. No pressure!
That's not the error here, the error here is that "0day" is ignored, leaving the service to run as the default user "root". It could just as easily been "3day" or "nоbody" and the service would have run as root.
Because 4 people on Debian's tech committee voted for it? Because RedHat hired Pottering?
You seem to have a twisted idea of "popular". The vast majority of people run Windows. Of the tiny fraction that's left, the vast majority doesn't give a shit because it isn't causing a problem for them. The only people we hear about against it are the ones who have been bitten by the issues in it and faced nothing but frustration getting them fixed thanks to Pottering's view that if systemd doesn't work, it's the rest of the universe's fault, and therefore the rest of the universe MUST be changed to fix it. Whether that is network filesystem issues that have lingered for years because Pottering insists that ALL network devices must be turned off before turning off the computer, or this bug where invalid usernames bypass all the other checks and run as root.
Which, btw, isn't limited to just usernames starting with a digit. Because the "invalid username" check disables the User= option, it therefore also bypasses the "username exists" check. Therefore, it could also include code you copy off Stack Overflow which appears to run a service as "User=nobody" but "nobody" is actually written with Cyrillic "nоbody" and is therefore invalid.
Honestly? It's the part that will arrest me if I just go steal spools of fiber off of trucks, or if I enslave people to dig trenches for free.
Google Fiber was expected to spend $10 billion on installing fiber in the neighborhoods they were welcomed into with wide open arms and special government treatment (Kansas City cost over $1 billion alone). How many other companies have billions of dollars just lying around? Not only that, but we saw the local ISPs immediately cut costs and boost bandwidth in those regions to remain competitive. How many investors are going to hand you a billion dollars to compete in one city where the incumbent will immediately undercut you by leveraging their revenue from across the country to take a loss where you're trying to compete?
Uh, that DID happen. Then the phone lines were "deregulated" around 2005 by removing the requirement that the phone companies share the lines with their competitors, and all the DSL providers got the boot.
It's trusted by the browser by default, so it has that going for it.
Also, unlike self-signed certs it demonstrates that the person requesting the cert has control over the hostname(s), which is pretty much all I ever had to do when I paid for a non-EV certificate.
They're what tell you that you're looking at an INI file.
Trump's new "internet tax", whatever that is, is absolutely something to do with technology, even if it's some fake tax he's dreamed up while drinking his covfefe.
"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."
But that was what the switches were for! If you got tired of playing Combat with tanks 1-on-1, you could play Combat with 3 tanks versus 3 tanks! Or 3 tanks versus 1 fat tank! Not good enough? How about Combat with planes!
There was no "Discovered" about it, they claimed that he sold his shares because he must have known that the government would retaliate against his refusal to perform illegal wiretaps (yes, if you pass a law making it legal after the fact, then you are admitting that they were illegal at the time) by canceling their contracts.
Sounds like what I get at a regular doctor, so it seems my tax dollars are worth exactly as much as my own earned dollars.