"Working" means not destroying lives. You know what Scientology is, right? It ruins lives. Simply getting someone off heroin isn't good enough if you dump them into a destructive cult.
The -anon programs contradictorily claim high cure rates (which aren't found in 3rd-party examination) and that you are never actually cured and only lifetime attendance keeps you safe. Evidence of benefit is scarce and danger signs of religion are everywhere.
Cults, by their very nature, are irrational and irrationality is the ultimate impediment to self-empowerment. Deadly drugs themselves, but of the mind. To "cure" someone by leaving them in a cult is nonsensical. Even if they're unarguably helped in one way they're forever less capable of looking after themselves.
Religion is faith-based, hence anti-reason, and thus tautologically bad in the context of reality. I think this is an exception to your fallacy.
My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels.
If they're concerned about productivity it'd be far better to make sure you're working than simply to make sure than if you're slacking you at least aren't looking at porn or reading anything controversial.
But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government
Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company.
Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies.
I mean that you are more than an anything of Texas, Texas is defined in terms of you, the people. Even citizen is a fairly passive term compared to sovereign for instance.
That said, if I did find your sig inflammatory I would not hesitate to attack it despite you having been discussing something else. If I have to look at it, I'll feel free to respond.
I'd say that your company doesn't care if you learn or not. They'll keep you while you do, but ditch you for a new person at a moment's notice if you fail to. They see you as replaceable so they don't need to spend time maintaining you. Like how with a cheap tool it's more efficient to use it hard and buy another one.
A company like Zerth's recognizes that there's more to tech skills than the flavor of the day and they strive to find a competent person and keep training them so they bring the benefits of their wisdom to the new problems.
You might have all of Zerth's skills, and do all of the training he does (on your own time!), but he'll get respect for it because his company sees it as improving a resource and you'll get squat because your company doesn't. If anything they'll see it as a weakness - always training and always staying in the same place.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you are paid lowly and yet expected to do more work (on-call). You're just justifying their beliefs by being willing to work a crappy job with bad hours for low pay. If you could do better you would, they figure, so why would they pay more or treat you better?
Sure, in a simplistic sense, they have the right to control what goes on at work.
But they're our employees and this might be something I want them to read. The issue is a government agency wanting the ability to keep their agents from reading anything controversial.
It's censorship, which is done to keep the agents easily controlled and to build artificial us/them barriers against those with dissenting views. It's fundamentally at odds with the needs of the people for educated servants who judge the ethics of their orders for themselves.
Yes it's legal, but that they're trying it is a bad sign. It's like maximum IQ limits for cops.
It's just funny how that stuff mostly happens to people who seem generally spoiling for a fight.
It's funny how most police apologists' first step is to blame the victim.
Why do you assume the victim was dressed or acting provocatively simply because of their current attitude as a result of the attack.
How this makes it appropriate to use the term "pig" as a lable for police is beyond me.
Not "for police" in general, and you know it. For thugs in face-masks who beat people at riots. For thugs who throw kids down stairs. For liars who try to frame people for resisting arrest. For the "good ones" who see all of this and yet don't speak out.
It's no different than a cop that calls everyone they meet "punk"... but the difference is that such cops are imaginary comic-book villains,
I've been harassed for having a camera. Told that photography on public transit (out the windows of the terminal across the bay at the city) was illegal, etc.
The officer in question clearly knew he was making up his claim but he thought he had the right to create law on the spot. He then used common police tricks to try to trick me into committing a "crime". When he told me I could go he and his partner stood in front of me waiting for me to touch them as I moved past - when they'd claim assault.
Clearly these ones are not imaginary.
whereas the GP actually is an idiot characature of a twit right out of 1968.
Not at all. He referred to the specific police officer holding him without reason as a pig. Not the police officer investigating a robbery, or ticketing reckless drivers, just the one holding him without a valid reason.
Traitor seems more accurate.
Have you ever actually looked up what that work means? I didn't think so.
A person who abuses trust or authority over their charges. Traditionally in the context of war and country or family. But death/violence/corruption from civil authorities seems to apply.
Perhaps when you've been unreasonably stopped, illegally ordered to desist a legal activity, told that you'll be charged and banned from public utilities for life (regardless of trial outcome - simply for "defying orders"), and threatened with violence and unfair charges of resisting arrest/assaulting a police officer, as I have, you'll feel more betrayed by the system you're paying for.
Certainly there are good officers, but the term definitely fits the abusive ones.
That's inaccurate. There's nothing that lets a home user on a generic residential line to know the ANI. You are 100% wrong about that, and everything else.
I didn't say there was. I said:
CID changing is PART OF THE PROTOCOL That the equipment to set it is so rare you haven't heard of it isn't my problem.
You're a fucking imbecile. Learn to read.
the *only* thing they see is the nickname and the "real information" is *not* on a lower level delivered to the residential line.
No, it's not there on the service you use for a residential line. That's one of the reasons it's obsolete.
I've repeatedly stated that I'm talking about "spoofing" being the common usage, not the technical usage, and you've apparently ignored all my clarifications
You want to make the simple action of a user setting the CID information a criminal act regardless of the circumstances.
Fraud already is against the law, even if it includes setting false CID information.
No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Bullshit. You answered it above. I'm saying this is a technical issue and is working as intended.
You know full well what I'm trying to discuss and you play definition games.
Language is a semantic game.
Fuck off. You're the one trying to hammer what I say into your tiny little holes. If you didn't insist so hard about your one definition of fraud being the only one and actually tried to discuss the issue I was raising you could have skipped the last few moves in your little semantic game.
I have no fear. But I have the realistic knowledge that lying to cheat people is illegal, and spoofing CID is used as a lie to cheat people. That's currently illegal.
You're running to ban something that you already admit is banned.
Making CID spoofing illegal will have just a tiny little change in proof of gain for those committing fraud with CID.
You recognize it'll cause at absolute best a tiny little change for the bad guys, and yet you're still demanding it be forbidden.
And you accuse me of rhetorical games. You invent a false dichotomy and then assault some strawman.
Why do you think fraud should be legal?
You're the one trying to put words in my mouth. And blaming me for it while doing it.
You're either delusional or a liar.
and your statement is unrelated to whether lying for gain is or isn't illegal.
Did you ever stop to consider why?
It wasn't the conversation I was having. You keep trying to force me to answer crazy McCarthy-esqe questions as if it could have any influence on the technical conversation at hand.
But you are arguing that because they have locks on doors, trespassing should be legal, right?
The law against trespassing is what keeps people from trespassing. We don't need a law against touching door-knobs.
To use your doorknob analogy, you want to forbid opening doors without authorization. A noble, but imbecilic, goal. The only effect it could have would be to decrease security by encouraging people to trust the law to keep them safe. Sure, a criminal who pursued them through an unlocked door could face a higher penalty for doing so but the victim would be dead/etc by then.
Again, non sequitur. I'm not speaking as to what's good security policy.
No, again with you trying to ignore my point in this thread, which is that political band-aids for technological problems are failures.
I am speaking as to what's a good security policy. To the degree that you are not, stop.
All I'll say about that is trespass is illegal and they have locks anyway.
Yes, because they aren't as stupid are you are. Locks keep people out, laws punish them later.
That's because people are asking the wrong question. The cop isn't going to say "yes", and it's the only answer that lets them leave.
Like an AC said they need to word it so that he has to take initiative to keep them.
Something like "I'm leaving unless you tell me I'm detained and give me a valid reason". Here the no-work default is to let you walk off. They have to be motivated to say otherwise.
They need to ask a question that drags the cop out of his flow and makes him at least commit to detaining you, ideally with a reason you can work with.
Pig sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to call someone who stops you for something that isn't a crime, tries to set you up for "assaulting a police officer" or "resisting arrest", and threatens to ban you for life from a public service.
I'm talking about things that shouldn't be made into crimes. Your posts are nothing but a semantic game about the meaning of lie vs fraud. Fuck off with your pedantic bullshit.
You know what I was talking about and are totally unwilling to address the point.
CID changing is PART OF THE PROTOCOL, where clients can call themselves whatever they want, because the real information is lower in another untouchable field. It's like how ICQ gives you a user number but lets you change your nickname. To someone from another system it might seem like everyone can spoof each other until they know to use the number to identify people, not the name.
I understand your fears. To you this is as scary as if your bank started offering services on IRC to people by their nickname. You'd be panicked someone else could use the name AK_Marc and clear out your account. But instead of doing the reasonable thing and demanding your bank fix its system, require passwords, etc, you're demanding laws to fix it by making a federal nickname registry.
Wouldn't you rather the voicemail provider in this situation was required to read the REAL data, or ask for a password when it's not available, than be allowed to keep being insecure? As long as they demand laws to band-aid over their flaws and authoritarians like yourself rise to the call they'll never tackle their own problems. When it's illegal they'll pretend nobody can do it and when your voicemail gets listened to or goes missing they'll just say "that's impossible".
People seem more amazed by the phrase "a million bucks" than it warrants these days. In the context of a mathematician it's a lot but it's not enough to enable him to fund his own university or whatever dream he would really need megabucks for.
And he obviously doesn't want stuff or money. There are a lot of institutions who'd give it to him already, without whatever annoyance the award would entail.
That said, I like #7. Once he buys the monkeys he doesn't have to say no directly...
There's no qualitative difference between laws and "guidelines you may be punished for not following".
Laws are based on the mandate of those subjected to them.
Anything based on or supported by censorship is a dictate as the public is by definition denied meaningful input.
It's foolish to do any of those things, because that risk is there. This is not as low-risk as torrenting a music album.
Exactly. And that's why it's foolish not to disobey. Not to flaunt the bits they're watching, but for instance to look up the abuses of the state that they hide from their own subjects before you go there.
You say that copyright grants monopoly rights, then say that they shouldn't ever prevent publishing.
To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights.
Yes, it does. That's a fact. It grants monopoly rights. But its purpose is to encourage publishing. The monopoly thing is just the first thing they came up with hundreds of years ago, in a time rife with monarchies handing out monopolies on everything from printing to the western hemisphere.
So when the method (monopolies) prevents publishing the law as written is in conflict with its purpose.
How can you have a monopoly where everyone can enter the market?
I didn't say you could, but you could have a publishing encouragement system without monopolies.
You say that copyright should encourage publishing but shouldn't enrich the author. How should publishing be encouraged without enriching the author?
No, I said that wasn't its purpose. The wording wasn't "to reward authors..." it was "to enrich the public domain...".
But since you asked, use now as an example. We don't directly reward you. We give you a monopoly and let you exploit it yourself.
One system would simply be to enrich the author. Taxpayer-funded grants. The Star Wars Kid would just get a check from the government without hassling about right or anyone having to pay to download.
There are many ideas. Few are as bad as letting someone use public media to base something off of and then retain absolute control of that for over a century.
You're pedantically using "teach" to mean "impart the totality of human knowledge in one uninterruptable dump".
Nobody is asking you for that! Trust me.
He's using it to mean "teach her enough about something to decide for herself if she needs to know more".
At no point did he tell her anything wrong. He just gave her the detail most relevant to her immediate need first and then paused to let her digest the answer and ask further question.
Yes, she will have to ask further questions, each to address another aspect she cares to know about, when and if she does cares.
She'd be learning. He, having assisted, would be teaching.
I liked the way it made the world feel deeper. Obviously they couldn't simulate modern games in a game, let alone future games, but it took an otherwise annoying device (a PDA to read plot, yawn!) and made it a real something people would carry.
Things like that kept SS2 from just being another on-a-rail FPS with a sci-fi theme.
But I dislike being forced to actually play a mini-game. It's neat they're there, because they would be and it's authenticity, but I dislike them now so I certainly wouldn't want one "in a game". It's like that "Yo Dawg, I heard you like games..." meme.
Of course that's where it'd be most relevant to read about Tiananmen Square if you'd never heard about it until catching hints of buried controversy. You'd go google - err, something patriotic - for hints and run right into the wall and onto a watchlist.
So yeah. Keep your head down and don't read about anything china/history related while there because who knows what's going to freak someone out. It's not exactly like they'll make a nice list of forbidden subjects so that you could stay safe.
It's mostly moot though. They want foreign money so you're unlikely to really suffer even if caught. Yay diplomatic immunity. Pity the locals.
respect and saving face is a huge part of the culture
And in other places they eat live eels. There's a lot of stupid shit in the world.
While what you say may be true, to say it like that is like saying we should give them a pass for their obnoxious behavior simply because they're used to it... Shall we give racists in our home countries a free pass on their idiocy simply because it's cultural for them to be hating?
flip the tables and say some guy wanted to view CP in the US
Oh please do drag that stupid CP argument out here so we can kick it to death.
The US allows brutal degradation of actresses for porn, depictions of rape and murder, actual footage of such (usually), depictions of infants being cooked and fed to dogs, etc, etc, etc. And in the middle of that they want to draw a fence around CP.
Many token arguments are made, such as it encouraging real abuses, but they could be made for any of the rest of that cesspool. Ultimately they all fail to the brutal reality that censorship and FUD aren't security. The blind panic around CP is growing old, we can see it's not actually doing anything to protect anyone. And the censorship not only wouldn't help, and is immoral to implement, but is impossible.
I'd support someone looking up communism when it was the panic word. How could I draw the line at some other panic word? And even if I could, how could I know I wasn't just panicking? So no. For practical and ethical reasons we can't censor even if the content disgusts, scares us, or reveals our war-crimes.
circumventing the laws of a nation of which you are not a citizen is not only illegal
Tautologically, circumventing any law is legal. And just as meaninglessly, breaking a law is always illegal. But is the law right? Is the nation valid?
you are a guest in the country and breaking any countries laws while as such is really disrespectful.
China isn't a valid country, and as such doesn't have laws. It has dictatorial guidelines you may be killed for not following but they aren't the same.
No country that censors its people could claim to have a mandate to rule from them. A people kept ignorant by definition can't competently agree to anything done in their name.
China isn't well know for being good sports about that sort of thing.
Slavers rarely are. Poke too many holes in their nets and their country would vanish.
If you really don't like the law don't travel there
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want to interfere with China's right to beat its wife and kids. God no, it's sovereign and that should mean something!
No, he's right. He's also right in that he's literally right - nothing he said was wrong.
Sure he didn't go into much detail. Certainly not enough for his mom to use in all contexts. But that's fine because she's right there and can ask another question.
"How big is it compared to a megabyte" "how many gigabytes is an email" etc
Even if he guessed her intent incorrectly he clearly stated what he was saying so it wasn't confusing and was quick enough to take a few more stabs at it before you would get around to starting.
Knowing a mole is a chemistry term could be all someone needed to know you didn't mean a brown furry thing.
They might have thought the group was armed but they were obtaining permission to fire based on the cameras the journalists were carrying. By the time the possible weapons are visible they've already phoned home for permission. That some weapons were found on some people doesn't change that they'd have gunned the journalists down for their cameras alone.
Then they attacked the first responders in a follow-up attack (a typical terrorist ploy), and as you say - blamed the rescuer for the death of his children for trying to rescue victims of what would appear to be a roadside bomb attack to a layman on the ground.
You say that "soldiers", plural, rushed the children to safety. This is completely untrue. The video shows one soldier rushing the children, one at a time because the rest of the soldiers do not help, to a vehicle for medical help. He was later reprimanded for this and it is part of why he left the armed forces.
i didn't see an apache shooting at innocent journalists or children. I did see an apache shooting at what they thought was an armed group.
Would you be okay if I shot you because I thought you were a kidnapper? I mean, it's okay because I'm not shooting an innocent guy, I'm shooting a kidnapper... right? Or is there suddenly some burden of proof required because you're you and not some ignorant foreign mud-blood too stupid to be born in our country?
But of course there's no need to be civilized over there where we're trying to win hearts and minds and install democracy...
You are the first person I've ever spoken to that thinks fraud should be legal.
You are so fucking dumb. You're the first person I've met who's thinks I want the tautologically impossible, that fraud not be illegal.
You quoted it yourself, prosecuting trivialities as crimes.
Trivialities. Spoofing CID is a triviality because it's not meant to be a secure system.
You either think it is or isn't fraud.
I think we're wasting time and money making things fraud.
Next, you'll tell me that if I claim to be President George H W Bush on the phone with someone and request a donation to a fake charity, that it's not fraud because purposefully lying with the intent to deceive for profit isn't "fraud" it's just creative use of a nickname.
It's the defrauding of the charity that's the problem, not the phrase "my name is George Bush".
most people would like the government help enforce laws against fraud.
Most people also want the government not to throw money away on band-aid solutions to made-up problems.
It's our law. If we don't decide to make it fraud then it doesn't have to be illegal.
Negligence is actionable, even if the person taking advantage of the negligence broke the law. A locksmith that "secures" your house by putting in locks that don't work is liable when someone breaks the law to burgle.
Not when the government decrees set the acceptable standards. If cellphones can't be monitored (by fiat) why would a company bother providing extra protection? How could they be shown to be negligent? Demonstrating the problem, or even having equipment to do so, was illegal.
Similarly, a locksmith can only be sued if they failed to install a lock of normal quality, not if all locks of normal quality are easily defeated. If you ban lock-picks you can keep most people ignorant, but not safe.
And rape, she was asking for it.
You forgot to compare me to Hitler.
Ignorant and sure of it is called stupidity.
You mean like how you don't understand what I'm saying but are attacking it anyways?
Slashdot Mirror
"Working" means not destroying lives. You know what Scientology is, right? It ruins lives. Simply getting someone off heroin isn't good enough if you dump them into a destructive cult.
The -anon programs contradictorily claim high cure rates (which aren't found in 3rd-party examination) and that you are never actually cured and only lifetime attendance keeps you safe. Evidence of benefit is scarce and danger signs of religion are everywhere.
Cults, by their very nature, are irrational and irrationality is the ultimate impediment to self-empowerment. Deadly drugs themselves, but of the mind. To "cure" someone by leaving them in a cult is nonsensical. Even if they're unarguably helped in one way they're forever less capable of looking after themselves.
Religion is faith-based, hence anti-reason, and thus tautologically bad in the context of reality. I think this is an exception to your fallacy.
My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels.
If they're concerned about productivity it'd be far better to make sure you're working than simply to make sure than if you're slacking you at least aren't looking at porn or reading anything controversial.
But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government
Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company.
Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies.
No, oversight. Financial and otherwise.
Sigh. No.
I mean that you are more than an anything of Texas, Texas is defined in terms of you, the people. Even citizen is a fairly passive term compared to sovereign for instance.
That said, if I did find your sig inflammatory I would not hesitate to attack it despite you having been discussing something else. If I have to look at it, I'll feel free to respond.
I'd say that your company doesn't care if you learn or not. They'll keep you while you do, but ditch you for a new person at a moment's notice if you fail to. They see you as replaceable so they don't need to spend time maintaining you. Like how with a cheap tool it's more efficient to use it hard and buy another one.
A company like Zerth's recognizes that there's more to tech skills than the flavor of the day and they strive to find a competent person and keep training them so they bring the benefits of their wisdom to the new problems.
You might have all of Zerth's skills, and do all of the training he does (on your own time!), but he'll get respect for it because his company sees it as improving a resource and you'll get squat because your company doesn't. If anything they'll see it as a weakness - always training and always staying in the same place.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you are paid lowly and yet expected to do more work (on-call). You're just justifying their beliefs by being willing to work a crappy job with bad hours for low pay. If you could do better you would, they figure, so why would they pay more or treat you better?
If surfing never came up in the context of TSA work why would they ban it? Hmmm?
Presumably this would apply to lunch-time browsing as well. Maybe that's all it is.
And what they decide is only as appropriate as we, their bosses, say it is. This isn't some private company.
Sure, in a simplistic sense, they have the right to control what goes on at work.
But they're our employees and this might be something I want them to read. The issue is a government agency wanting the ability to keep their agents from reading anything controversial.
It's censorship, which is done to keep the agents easily controlled and to build artificial us/them barriers against those with dissenting views. It's fundamentally at odds with the needs of the people for educated servants who judge the ethics of their orders for themselves.
Yes it's legal, but that they're trying it is a bad sign. It's like maximum IQ limits for cops.
It's just funny how that stuff mostly happens to people who seem generally spoiling for a fight.
It's funny how most police apologists' first step is to blame the victim.
Why do you assume the victim was dressed or acting provocatively simply because of their current attitude as a result of the attack.
How this makes it appropriate to use the term "pig" as a lable for police is beyond me.
Not "for police" in general, and you know it. For thugs in face-masks who beat people at riots. For thugs who throw kids down stairs. For liars who try to frame people for resisting arrest. For the "good ones" who see all of this and yet don't speak out.
It's no different than a cop that calls everyone they meet "punk" ... but the difference is that such cops are imaginary comic-book villains,
I've been harassed for having a camera. Told that photography on public transit (out the windows of the terminal across the bay at the city) was illegal, etc.
The officer in question clearly knew he was making up his claim but he thought he had the right to create law on the spot. He then used common police tricks to try to trick me into committing a "crime". When he told me I could go he and his partner stood in front of me waiting for me to touch them as I moved past - when they'd claim assault.
Clearly these ones are not imaginary.
whereas the GP actually is an idiot characature of a twit right out of 1968.
Not at all. He referred to the specific police officer holding him without reason as a pig. Not the police officer investigating a robbery, or ticketing reckless drivers, just the one holding him without a valid reason.
Traitor seems more accurate.
Have you ever actually looked up what that work means? I didn't think so.
A person who abuses trust or authority over their charges. Traditionally in the context of war and country or family. But death/violence/corruption from civil authorities seems to apply.
Perhaps when you've been unreasonably stopped, illegally ordered to desist a legal activity, told that you'll be charged and banned from public utilities for life (regardless of trial outcome - simply for "defying orders"), and threatened with violence and unfair charges of resisting arrest/assaulting a police officer, as I have, you'll feel more betrayed by the system you're paying for.
Certainly there are good officers, but the term definitely fits the abusive ones.
That's inaccurate. There's nothing that lets a home user on a generic residential line to know the ANI. You are 100% wrong about that, and everything else.
I didn't say there was. I said:
CID changing is PART OF THE PROTOCOL
That the equipment to set it is so rare you haven't heard of it isn't my problem.
You're a fucking imbecile. Learn to read.
the *only* thing they see is the nickname and the "real information" is *not* on a lower level delivered to the residential line.
No, it's not there on the service you use for a residential line. That's one of the reasons it's obsolete.
I've repeatedly stated that I'm talking about "spoofing" being the common usage, not the technical usage, and you've apparently ignored all my clarifications
You want to make the simple action of a user setting the CID information a criminal act regardless of the circumstances.
Fraud already is against the law, even if it includes setting false CID information.
No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Bullshit. You answered it above. I'm saying this is a technical issue and is working as intended.
You know full well what I'm trying to discuss and you play definition games.
Language is a semantic game.
Fuck off. You're the one trying to hammer what I say into your tiny little holes. If you didn't insist so hard about your one definition of fraud being the only one and actually tried to discuss the issue I was raising you could have skipped the last few moves in your little semantic game.
I have no fear. But I have the realistic knowledge that lying to cheat people is illegal, and spoofing CID is used as a lie to cheat people. That's currently illegal.
You're running to ban something that you already admit is banned.
Making CID spoofing illegal will have just a tiny little change in proof of gain for those committing fraud with CID.
You recognize it'll cause at absolute best a tiny little change for the bad guys, and yet you're still demanding it be forbidden.
And you accuse me of rhetorical games. You invent a false dichotomy and then assault some strawman.
Why do you think fraud should be legal?
You're the one trying to put words in my mouth. And blaming me for it while doing it.
You're either delusional or a liar.
and your statement is unrelated to whether lying for gain is or isn't illegal.
Did you ever stop to consider why?
It wasn't the conversation I was having. You keep trying to force me to answer crazy McCarthy-esqe questions as if it could have any influence on the technical conversation at hand.
But you are arguing that because they have locks on doors, trespassing should be legal, right?
The law against trespassing is what keeps people from trespassing. We don't need a law against touching door-knobs.
To use your doorknob analogy, you want to forbid opening doors without authorization. A noble, but imbecilic, goal. The only effect it could have would be to decrease security by encouraging people to trust the law to keep them safe. Sure, a criminal who pursued them through an unlocked door could face a higher penalty for doing so but the victim would be dead/etc by then.
Again, non sequitur. I'm not speaking as to what's good security policy.
No, again with you trying to ignore my point in this thread, which is that political band-aids for technological problems are failures.
I am speaking as to what's a good security policy. To the degree that you are not, stop.
All I'll say about that is trespass is illegal and they have locks anyway.
Yes, because they aren't as stupid are you are. Locks keep people out, laws punish them later.
That's because people are asking the wrong question. The cop isn't going to say "yes", and it's the only answer that lets them leave.
Like an AC said they need to word it so that he has to take initiative to keep them.
Something like "I'm leaving unless you tell me I'm detained and give me a valid reason". Here the no-work default is to let you walk off. They have to be motivated to say otherwise.
They need to ask a question that drags the cop out of his flow and makes him at least commit to detaining you, ideally with a reason you can work with.
Pig sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to call someone who stops you for something that isn't a crime, tries to set you up for "assaulting a police officer" or "resisting arrest", and threatens to ban you for life from a public service.
Traitor seems more accurate.
I'm talking about things that shouldn't be made into crimes. Your posts are nothing but a semantic game about the meaning of lie vs fraud. Fuck off with your pedantic bullshit.
You know what I was talking about and are totally unwilling to address the point.
CID changing is PART OF THE PROTOCOL, where clients can call themselves whatever they want, because the real information is lower in another untouchable field. It's like how ICQ gives you a user number but lets you change your nickname. To someone from another system it might seem like everyone can spoof each other until they know to use the number to identify people, not the name.
I understand your fears. To you this is as scary as if your bank started offering services on IRC to people by their nickname. You'd be panicked someone else could use the name AK_Marc and clear out your account. But instead of doing the reasonable thing and demanding your bank fix its system, require passwords, etc, you're demanding laws to fix it by making a federal nickname registry.
Wouldn't you rather the voicemail provider in this situation was required to read the REAL data, or ask for a password when it's not available, than be allowed to keep being insecure? As long as they demand laws to band-aid over their flaws and authoritarians like yourself rise to the call they'll never tackle their own problems. When it's illegal they'll pretend nobody can do it and when your voicemail gets listened to or goes missing they'll just say "that's impossible".
People seem more amazed by the phrase "a million bucks" than it warrants these days. In the context of a mathematician it's a lot but it's not enough to enable him to fund his own university or whatever dream he would really need megabucks for.
And he obviously doesn't want stuff or money. There are a lot of institutions who'd give it to him already, without whatever annoyance the award would entail.
That said, I like #7. Once he buys the monkeys he doesn't have to say no directly...
There's no qualitative difference between laws and "guidelines you may be punished for not following".
Laws are based on the mandate of those subjected to them.
Anything based on or supported by censorship is a dictate as the public is by definition denied meaningful input.
It's foolish to do any of those things, because that risk is there. This is not as low-risk as torrenting a music album.
Exactly. And that's why it's foolish not to disobey. Not to flaunt the bits they're watching, but for instance to look up the abuses of the state that they hide from their own subjects before you go there.
Your comment is full of contradictions.
No, you just didn't read carefully.
You say that copyright grants monopoly rights, then say that they shouldn't ever prevent publishing.
To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights.
Yes, it does. That's a fact. It grants monopoly rights. But its purpose is to encourage publishing. The monopoly thing is just the first thing they came up with hundreds of years ago, in a time rife with monarchies handing out monopolies on everything from printing to the western hemisphere.
So when the method (monopolies) prevents publishing the law as written is in conflict with its purpose.
How can you have a monopoly where everyone can enter the market?
I didn't say you could, but you could have a publishing encouragement system without monopolies.
You say that copyright should encourage publishing but shouldn't enrich the author. How should publishing be encouraged without enriching the author?
No, I said that wasn't its purpose. The wording wasn't "to reward authors ..." it was "to enrich the public domain ...".
But since you asked, use now as an example. We don't directly reward you. We give you a monopoly and let you exploit it yourself.
One system would simply be to enrich the author. Taxpayer-funded grants. The Star Wars Kid would just get a check from the government without hassling about right or anyone having to pay to download.
There are many ideas. Few are as bad as letting someone use public media to base something off of and then retain absolute control of that for over a century.
You're pedantically using "teach" to mean "impart the totality of human knowledge in one uninterruptable dump".
Nobody is asking you for that! Trust me.
He's using it to mean "teach her enough about something to decide for herself if she needs to know more".
At no point did he tell her anything wrong. He just gave her the detail most relevant to her immediate need first and then paused to let her digest the answer and ask further question.
Yes, she will have to ask further questions, each to address another aspect she cares to know about, when and if she does cares.
She'd be learning. He, having assisted, would be teaching.
I liked the way it made the world feel deeper. Obviously they couldn't simulate modern games in a game, let alone future games, but it took an otherwise annoying device (a PDA to read plot, yawn!) and made it a real something people would carry.
Things like that kept SS2 from just being another on-a-rail FPS with a sci-fi theme.
But I dislike being forced to actually play a mini-game. It's neat they're there, because they would be and it's authenticity, but I dislike them now so I certainly wouldn't want one "in a game". It's like that "Yo Dawg, I heard you like games ..." meme.
You are not even merely a citizen of Texas, Texas is a state of people like you.
Of course that's where it'd be most relevant to read about Tiananmen Square if you'd never heard about it until catching hints of buried controversy. You'd go google - err, something patriotic - for hints and run right into the wall and onto a watchlist.
So yeah. Keep your head down and don't read about anything china/history related while there because who knows what's going to freak someone out. It's not exactly like they'll make a nice list of forbidden subjects so that you could stay safe.
It's mostly moot though. They want foreign money so you're unlikely to really suffer even if caught. Yay diplomatic immunity. Pity the locals.
respect and saving face is a huge part of the culture
And in other places they eat live eels. There's a lot of stupid shit in the world.
While what you say may be true, to say it like that is like saying we should give them a pass for their obnoxious behavior simply because they're used to it... Shall we give racists in our home countries a free pass on their idiocy simply because it's cultural for them to be hating?
flip the tables and say some guy wanted to view CP in the US
Oh please do drag that stupid CP argument out here so we can kick it to death.
The US allows brutal degradation of actresses for porn, depictions of rape and murder, actual footage of such (usually), depictions of infants being cooked and fed to dogs, etc, etc, etc. And in the middle of that they want to draw a fence around CP.
Many token arguments are made, such as it encouraging real abuses, but they could be made for any of the rest of that cesspool. Ultimately they all fail to the brutal reality that censorship and FUD aren't security. The blind panic around CP is growing old, we can see it's not actually doing anything to protect anyone. And the censorship not only wouldn't help, and is immoral to implement, but is impossible.
I'd support someone looking up communism when it was the panic word. How could I draw the line at some other panic word? And even if I could, how could I know I wasn't just panicking? So no. For practical and ethical reasons we can't censor even if the content disgusts, scares us, or reveals our war-crimes.
circumventing the laws of a nation of which you are not a citizen is not only illegal
Tautologically, circumventing any law is legal. And just as meaninglessly, breaking a law is always illegal. But is the law right? Is the nation valid?
you are a guest in the country and breaking any countries laws while as such is really disrespectful.
China isn't a valid country, and as such doesn't have laws. It has dictatorial guidelines you may be killed for not following but they aren't the same.
No country that censors its people could claim to have a mandate to rule from them. A people kept ignorant by definition can't competently agree to anything done in their name.
China isn't well know for being good sports about that sort of thing.
Slavers rarely are. Poke too many holes in their nets and their country would vanish.
If you really don't like the law don't travel there
Oh yeah, we wouldn't want to interfere with China's right to beat its wife and kids. God no, it's sovereign and that should mean something!
No, he's right. He's also right in that he's literally right - nothing he said was wrong.
Sure he didn't go into much detail. Certainly not enough for his mom to use in all contexts. But that's fine because she's right there and can ask another question.
"How big is it compared to a megabyte"
"how many gigabytes is an email"
etc
Even if he guessed her intent incorrectly he clearly stated what he was saying so it wasn't confusing and was quick enough to take a few more stabs at it before you would get around to starting.
Knowing a mole is a chemistry term could be all someone needed to know you didn't mean a brown furry thing.
They might have thought the group was armed but they were obtaining permission to fire based on the cameras the journalists were carrying. By the time the possible weapons are visible they've already phoned home for permission. That some weapons were found on some people doesn't change that they'd have gunned the journalists down for their cameras alone.
Then they attacked the first responders in a follow-up attack (a typical terrorist ploy), and as you say - blamed the rescuer for the death of his children for trying to rescue victims of what would appear to be a roadside bomb attack to a layman on the ground.
You say that "soldiers", plural, rushed the children to safety. This is completely untrue. The video shows one soldier rushing the children, one at a time because the rest of the soldiers do not help, to a vehicle for medical help. He was later reprimanded for this and it is part of why he left the armed forces.
i didn't see an apache shooting at innocent journalists or children. I did see an apache shooting at what they thought was an armed group.
Would you be okay if I shot you because I thought you were a kidnapper? I mean, it's okay because I'm not shooting an innocent guy, I'm shooting a kidnapper... right? Or is there suddenly some burden of proof required because you're you and not some ignorant foreign mud-blood too stupid to be born in our country?
But of course there's no need to be civilized over there where we're trying to win hearts and minds and install democracy...
a stupid stampede
Where's a cliff when they need one?
I agree. I had thought you (and the submission) were misusing the term - I didn't know he actually had source to an old version.
I'd thought he'd written more of an emulator and had merely released it with the original art/levels.
You are the first person I've ever spoken to that thinks fraud should be legal.
You are so fucking dumb. You're the first person I've met who's thinks I want the tautologically impossible, that fraud not be illegal.
You quoted it yourself, prosecuting trivialities as crimes.
Trivialities. Spoofing CID is a triviality because it's not meant to be a secure system.
You either think it is or isn't fraud.
I think we're wasting time and money making things fraud.
Next, you'll tell me that if I claim to be President George H W Bush on the phone with someone and request a donation to a fake charity, that it's not fraud because purposefully lying with the intent to deceive for profit isn't "fraud" it's just creative use of a nickname.
It's the defrauding of the charity that's the problem, not the phrase "my name is George Bush".
most people would like the government help enforce laws against fraud.
Most people also want the government not to throw money away on band-aid solutions to made-up problems.
It's our law. If we don't decide to make it fraud then it doesn't have to be illegal.
Negligence is actionable, even if the person taking advantage of the negligence broke the law. A locksmith that "secures" your house by putting in locks that don't work is liable when someone breaks the law to burgle.
Not when the government decrees set the acceptable standards. If cellphones can't be monitored (by fiat) why would a company bother providing extra protection? How could they be shown to be negligent? Demonstrating the problem, or even having equipment to do so, was illegal.
Similarly, a locksmith can only be sued if they failed to install a lock of normal quality, not if all locks of normal quality are easily defeated. If you ban lock-picks you can keep most people ignorant, but not safe.
And rape, she was asking for it.
You forgot to compare me to Hitler.
Ignorant and sure of it is called stupidity.
You mean like how you don't understand what I'm saying but are attacking it anyways?