Who cares about exactly how? "Guccifer guessed password reset questions" means that he got unauthorized access to the server. Hell, the fact that password reset questions even existed and were enabled in the first place makes it WORSE.
He didn't claim to access her webmail.
He claimed to have actual admin access enabling him to see other people logged into the server, are you aware of many servers where you answer a password reset question to get admin access?
Asked if he was curious about the address, Lazar merely smiled. Asked if he used the same security question approach to access the Clinton emails, he said no – then described how he allegedly got inside.
“For example, when Sidney Blumenthal got an email, I checked the email pattern from Hillary Clinton, from Colin Powell from anyone else to find out the originating IP. When they send a letter, the email header is the originating IP usually,” Lazar explained.
He said, “then I scanned with an IP scanner."
Lazar emphasized that he used readily available web programs to see if the server was “alive” and which ports were open. Lazar identified programs like netscan, Netmap, Wireshark and Angry IP, though it was not possible to confirm independently which, if any, he used.
So yeah, this is his entire explanation of how he hacked the system:
Every time a story is posted about this it includes the claim that Guccifer hacked into Clinton's server.
IT NEVER HAPPENED!
Guccifer guessed password reset questions, he lacked the technical skills to actually hack a server.
Guccifer loved the notoriety of "hacking" famous people, he would never have broken into Clinton's server and then not published anything or told anyone because the emails were "not interesting".
Guccifer is in now in jail, is it so hard to believe that the hacker who publicly gloated over hacking famous people would now decide to make an unverifiable claim that he hacked the infamous emails of a super famous politician?
He's just trolling for attention and/. is obliging.
Netflix is also starting to cut it close as far as not offering me enough content to be useful.
Back in the old days, before they had competition, I could pretty much count on them having episodes of any older TV show I care about, and also lots of anime I hadn't yet seen (English-dubbed "Bleach", "Freezing", "M*A*S*H", etc.)
But lately, they're in the habit of dropping some of those shows, or at least of failing to carry recent seasons.
I'd gladly pay a few more bucks per month for them to remedy that.
I doubt it would help.
Netflix isn't missing a comprehensive library because of a mild price hike, they're missing that library because exclusive content is more valuable than comprehensive content.
As much as Netflix wants that show to round out their library another provider wants it more so they can be the exclusive source.
Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to scrutinize what people do during their own time, and then use that information to decide how they are to be treated on company time? If the shareholders are fine with the way Thiel is performing in his official Facebook role, that should be the only criteria. If he is doing a bad job and damaging Facebook in any way, he should be fired for that reason and only that reason.
I didn't like the way that prior Mozilla executive was treated either. His performance at Mozilla should have been his only employment criteria. What he did to be active in politics during his own time was no one else's business.
Anything else, and you get a very nasty "snitch" culture where conformity is everything and a tremendous chilling effect is applied to what really should be free expression.
In general I agree, I think neither Thiel nor the Mozilla exec did anything to warrant losing their positions.
However, I still think it's fair to hold board members and corporate officers to a somewhat higher standard when it comes to their public private activities. Even when they don't speak on behalf of their organizations their voice is significantly amplified by their professional roles, and what they say can reflect back on those organizations.
If the Libertarians wanted any real influence, they'd declare one of the primary parties candidates as theirs and support him/her. Then after the election if that candidate won and say 'we delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to support'. As it is, all they do is suck just enough votes away to swing the election from one primary party candidate to the other which just irritates the other parties and doesn't make any friends.
Then they're just a faction of whatever party they allied with.
If they actually want to make an influence they need to be a regional party and focus on specific downticket races where they can snag congressional seats or even a senate seat or governors mansion, even become dominant in a state legislature.
That being said Trump presents a unique opportunity, the Trump/GOP alliance is very fragile, if it fractures enough there might be an opportunity for them to beat Trump in the general election and take all the socially moderate Republicans.
It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.
Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.
Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.
Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
That still qualifies as hacking. As much as nerds try to create some super mastermind association to the word 'hacker', hacking simply means attempting/gaining unauthorised access.
Though in this case it's a critical distinction since the only intrusion method Guccifer used would not have been available on Clinton's server. The technical competence required to pull it off was far beyond anything he demonstrated.
This is Guccifer 2.0, totally different guy. Guccifer 1.0 is in FBI custody right now, and certainly didn't do this. Seriously, I am being serious.
I wasn't talking about Guccifer 2.0. The original Guccifer's made-up Clinton hack is included in the summary and treated as an established fact.
(Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.)
This is the second time slashdot has fallen for this. I don't know if the editors are just clueless or they're getting flooded by political trolls who find the Guccifer claim to be a good attack against Clinton.
He's already made it clear he thinks Putin's a good guy, so I think he's insulated himself even against that. I don't think Trump could do anything that would sway his supporters.
The problem being his supporters are a minority, so in a way, it's irrelevant what they think.
Being friendly is one thing.
Conspiring with hackers from a rival nation, possibly even an intelligence service from that nation, I think that's the end of Trump's campaign. Hell, he might not even get the nomination at that point.
Not only would it severely undercut the "protect the nation from outsiders" narrative of his campaign, but he'd potentially be subject to blackmail by a rival government.
Even if the offer was made to send it to them I wouldn't be shocked if his own campaign refused it knowing how dangerous it would be to posses.
If the hackers did it to benefit Trump, why not send it to his campaign secretly?
Trump's campaign is a mixture of... unconventional people who came with Trump and career RNC operatives, many of whom despise Trump and may prefer Trump lose and go away.
Chances are that secret file doesn't stay secret long and everyone quickly finds out that Trump has secret DNC documents given to him by Russian hackers.
I don't think even Trump could brush that scandal off.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??
He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.
Lots of agreements don't get assented by the senate. And don't pretend the GOP is in the clear on this, why do you think they passed the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015"? It basically gave the congress the right to review the agreement, vote on approval, and then have that disapproval vetoed by Obama.
My understanding is they never really cared to stop Obama from signing the agreement, they just wanted the maximum opportunity to demagogue against dealing with Iran.
Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.
b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.
c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.
This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.
But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.
Your point would be more compelling if there was a Christian state throwing gays off the roofs of buildings or involved in a rash of terrorist murders.
The IRA wasn't exactly from the middle ages and they were from what we'd consider one of the most civilized regions in the Christian world.
My claim isn't that the extremist Christians are as prevalent as the extremist Muslims, they clearly aren't.
My claim is this difference isn't due to some fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. It comes from a particular extremist ideology that happens to be very influential in Islam right now.
But this ideology is shared by only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.
I mean Mohammad Ali was a Muslim! Do you think he was an extremist? Was he somehow misunderstanding the faith by not being an extremist? Or do you accept that whatever Mohammad Ali considered to be Islam was so different from what ISIS calls Islam that they're completely different things?
Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:
killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"
(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)
FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.
The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.
[...]
But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.
[...]
That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.
Oh wait, wrong religion.
Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.
But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.
And yet it remains that Islam is way the most prominent ideology behind this kind of thing.
And I think it should be mentioned that the people most often victimized by Islamic terrorists are their fellow Muslims.
Right. So? This has precisely zero bearing on the question of whether Islam as a religion is a factor in Islamic terrorism.
Or were you somehow trying to tell turkeydance not to demonise Muslims (which they never did anyway)?
The problem with blaming "Islam" is there's a ton of people who consider themselves followers of "Islam" who have virtually nothing in common with this guy.
It's like blaming Christians when someone shoots an abortion doctor. There's Christians who regularly call for the murder of abortion doctors, there's others who don't call for murder but think it's fine, and there's Christians who are solidly pro-choice.
Should Christians be subject to extra monitoring? Are one group of Christians the real Christians and the others just misunderstood? Or is "Christian" just a label adopted by a ton of people with wildly divergent beliefs?
The evidence is presented in their video. It's there. It's real, and clearly irrefutable -- anyone can test it. And, it's pretty damning. The fact that VOX is now trying to do damage control makes it obvious that they, too, are complicit. Fuck you VOX!
"Clearly irrefutable" except for the fact that all of the examples are clearly refuted -- anyone can test it.
I just typed in "brock turner rap" and got zero autocompletes. You don't think rapist would be at the top of the list?
I typed in "donald trump law" and got nothing about law suits.
"Bernie madoff frau" and "Bernie madoff cri" return neither fraud nor crime.
"Paul Bernardo murd" and nothing about murder.
It's pretty obvious that google is very careful not to autocomplete potentially slanderous terms for anyone.
These were bone marrow stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Where did the bone marrow stem cells come from?
The treatment was done 13 years ago, I didn't think they were gene editing back then so I assume they come from donors? Does that mean they require immunosuppressant drugs?
The courts certainly do create law. Read any transcript from a civil trial and you will see loads of references to other cases and why or why not THAT particular law should apply in this case. If Congress (or other jurisdictions) made all the law, all that would be required is a reference to statute XYZ.
The law made by courts is called Common Law, and is the basis for pretty much all civil law.
It's a bit of a framing issue but I think of Common Law (or Case Law) as ultimately deriving from statutory law from congress. It's basically the courts laying out standards so that congressional laws are fairly and consistently applied.
I don't think American courts can do things through common law that congress can't.
Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,
The courts enforce laws. What's the source of these laws that abridge free speech?
WTF has the First Amendment got to do with this? The First only stops the government from censoring you. I, or any other private individual or company, can still tell you to shut up.
Aren't the courts part of the government?
Any restriction on your speech, even those you agree to as part of a contract, have to be enforced by courts and are thus subject to the first amendment.
I think the only time when first amendment is generally misapplied is when a non-government organization censors, such as a message board deleting posts. Even then there's ways in which the first amendment comes up.
I was just reading a related article on Tesla and the underlying claim is it may be a symptom of a bigger problem.
The thrust of the argument is that cars in general are shockingly reliable, this isn't an easy thing to do which is why car companies have been working at it a very long time and still have trouble.
Tesla is very new to making cars and their cars haven't been around a long time. The chances are really good that their cars will have huge reliability problems as they age.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about exactly how? "Guccifer guessed password reset questions" means that he got unauthorized access to the server. Hell, the fact that password reset questions even existed and were enabled in the first place makes it WORSE.
He didn't claim to access her webmail.
He claimed to have actual admin access enabling him to see other people logged into the server, are you aware of many servers where you answer a password reset question to get admin access?
But don't worry, he actually doesn't claim to have used a password reset. Just look at the original article:
Asked if he was curious about the address, Lazar merely smiled. Asked if he used the same security question approach to access the Clinton emails, he said no – then described how he allegedly got inside.
“For example, when Sidney Blumenthal got an email, I checked the email pattern from Hillary Clinton, from Colin Powell from anyone else to find out the originating IP. When they send a letter, the email header is the originating IP usually,” Lazar explained.
He said, “then I scanned with an IP scanner."
Lazar emphasized that he used readily available web programs to see if the server was “alive” and which ports were open. Lazar identified programs like netscan, Netmap, Wireshark and Angry IP, though it was not possible to confirm independently which, if any, he used.
So yeah, this is his entire explanation of how he hacked the system:
1) Port scan.
2) ??????
3) 1337 Hacker!
Every time a story is posted about this it includes the claim that Guccifer hacked into Clinton's server.
IT NEVER HAPPENED!
Guccifer guessed password reset questions, he lacked the technical skills to actually hack a server.
Guccifer loved the notoriety of "hacking" famous people, he would never have broken into Clinton's server and then not published anything or told anyone because the emails were "not interesting".
Guccifer is in now in jail, is it so hard to believe that the hacker who publicly gloated over hacking famous people would now decide to make an unverifiable claim that he hacked the infamous emails of a super famous politician?
He's just trolling for attention and /. is obliging.
Netflix is also starting to cut it close as far as not offering me enough content to be useful.
Back in the old days, before they had competition, I could pretty much count on them having episodes of any older TV show I care about, and also lots of anime I hadn't yet seen (English-dubbed "Bleach", "Freezing", "M*A*S*H", etc.)
But lately, they're in the habit of dropping some of those shows, or at least of failing to carry recent seasons.
I'd gladly pay a few more bucks per month for them to remedy that.
I doubt it would help.
Netflix isn't missing a comprehensive library because of a mild price hike, they're missing that library because exclusive content is more valuable than comprehensive content.
As much as Netflix wants that show to round out their library another provider wants it more so they can be the exclusive source.
Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to scrutinize what people do during their own time, and then use that information to decide how they are to be treated on company time? If the shareholders are fine with the way Thiel is performing in his official Facebook role, that should be the only criteria. If he is doing a bad job and damaging Facebook in any way, he should be fired for that reason and only that reason.
I didn't like the way that prior Mozilla executive was treated either. His performance at Mozilla should have been his only employment criteria. What he did to be active in politics during his own time was no one else's business.
Anything else, and you get a very nasty "snitch" culture where conformity is everything and a tremendous chilling effect is applied to what really should be free expression.
In general I agree, I think neither Thiel nor the Mozilla exec did anything to warrant losing their positions.
However, I still think it's fair to hold board members and corporate officers to a somewhat higher standard when it comes to their public private activities. Even when they don't speak on behalf of their organizations their voice is significantly amplified by their professional roles, and what they say can reflect back on those organizations.
If the Libertarians wanted any real influence, they'd declare one of the primary parties candidates as theirs and support him/her. Then after the election if that candidate won and say 'we delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to support'. As it is, all they do is suck just enough votes away to swing the election from one primary party candidate to the other which just irritates the other parties and doesn't make any friends.
Then they're just a faction of whatever party they allied with.
If they actually want to make an influence they need to be a regional party and focus on specific downticket races where they can snag congressional seats or even a senate seat or governors mansion, even become dominant in a state legislature.
That being said Trump presents a unique opportunity, the Trump/GOP alliance is very fragile, if it fractures enough there might be an opportunity for them to beat Trump in the general election and take all the socially moderate Republicans.
It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.
Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.
Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.
Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.
Bullshit argument indeed.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
That still qualifies as hacking. As much as nerds try to create some super mastermind association to the word 'hacker', hacking simply means attempting/gaining unauthorised access.
Though in this case it's a critical distinction since the only intrusion method Guccifer used would not have been available on Clinton's server. The technical competence required to pull it off was far beyond anything he demonstrated.
This is Guccifer 2.0, totally different guy. Guccifer 1.0 is in FBI custody right now, and certainly didn't do this. Seriously, I am being serious.
I wasn't talking about Guccifer 2.0. The original Guccifer's made-up Clinton hack is included in the summary and treated as an established fact.
(Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.)
This is the second time slashdot has fallen for this. I don't know if the editors are just clueless or they're getting flooded by political trolls who find the Guccifer claim to be a good attack against Clinton.
He's already made it clear he thinks Putin's a good guy, so I think he's insulated himself even against that. I don't think Trump could do anything that would sway his supporters.
The problem being his supporters are a minority, so in a way, it's irrelevant what they think.
Being friendly is one thing.
Conspiring with hackers from a rival nation, possibly even an intelligence service from that nation, I think that's the end of Trump's campaign. Hell, he might not even get the nomination at that point.
Not only would it severely undercut the "protect the nation from outsiders" narrative of his campaign, but he'd potentially be subject to blackmail by a rival government.
Even if the offer was made to send it to them I wouldn't be shocked if his own campaign refused it knowing how dangerous it would be to posses.
Considering that Trump already has an 87% chance to win the presidency according to primary models
I don't think you're mathing right.
If the hackers did it to benefit Trump, why not send it to his campaign secretly?
Trump's campaign is a mixture of... unconventional people who came with Trump and career RNC operatives, many of whom despise Trump and may prefer Trump lose and go away.
Chances are that secret file doesn't stay secret long and everyone quickly finds out that Trump has secret DNC documents given to him by Russian hackers.
I don't think even Trump could brush that scandal off.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??
He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.
Stop feeding the damn troll!
Lots of agreements don't get assented by the senate. And don't pretend the GOP is in the clear on this, why do you think they passed the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015"? It basically gave the congress the right to review the agreement, vote on approval, and then have that disapproval vetoed by Obama.
My understanding is they never really cared to stop Obama from signing the agreement, they just wanted the maximum opportunity to demagogue against dealing with Iran.
Not just that, but RT is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, and Putin and Trump seem relatively friendly.
I would be far from shocked if RT didn't have a directive to try and help Trump's campaign.
Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.
b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.
c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.
This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.
But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.
Your point would be more compelling if there was a Christian state throwing gays off the roofs of buildings or involved in a rash of terrorist murders.
The IRA wasn't exactly from the middle ages and they were from what we'd consider one of the most civilized regions in the Christian world.
My claim isn't that the extremist Christians are as prevalent as the extremist Muslims, they clearly aren't.
My claim is this difference isn't due to some fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. It comes from a particular extremist ideology that happens to be very influential in Islam right now.
But this ideology is shared by only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.
I mean Mohammad Ali was a Muslim! Do you think he was an extremist? Was he somehow misunderstanding the faith by not being an extremist? Or do you accept that whatever Mohammad Ali considered to be Islam was so different from what ISIS calls Islam that they're completely different things?
Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:
(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)
At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...
I know, this stuff is crazy.
The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.
[...]
But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.
[...]
That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.
Oh wait, wrong religion.
Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.
But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.
And yet it remains that Islam is way the most prominent ideology behind this kind of thing.
And I think it should be mentioned that the people most often victimized by Islamic terrorists are their fellow Muslims.
Right. So? This has precisely zero bearing on the question of whether Islam as a religion is a factor in Islamic terrorism.
Or were you somehow trying to tell turkeydance not to demonise Muslims (which they never did anyway)?
The problem with blaming "Islam" is there's a ton of people who consider themselves followers of "Islam" who have virtually nothing in common with this guy.
It's like blaming Christians when someone shoots an abortion doctor. There's Christians who regularly call for the murder of abortion doctors, there's others who don't call for murder but think it's fine, and there's Christians who are solidly pro-choice.
Should Christians be subject to extra monitoring? Are one group of Christians the real Christians and the others just misunderstood? Or is "Christian" just a label adopted by a ton of people with wildly divergent beliefs?
The evidence is presented in their video. It's there. It's real, and clearly irrefutable -- anyone can test it. And, it's pretty damning. The fact that VOX is now trying to do damage control makes it obvious that they, too, are complicit. Fuck you VOX!
"Clearly irrefutable" except for the fact that all of the examples are clearly refuted -- anyone can test it.
I just typed in "brock turner rap" and got zero autocompletes. You don't think rapist would be at the top of the list?
I typed in "donald trump law" and got nothing about law suits.
"Bernie madoff frau" and "Bernie madoff cri" return neither fraud nor crime.
"Paul Bernardo murd" and nothing about murder.
It's pretty obvious that google is very careful not to autocomplete potentially slanderous terms for anyone.
These were bone marrow stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Where did the bone marrow stem cells come from?
The treatment was done 13 years ago, I didn't think they were gene editing back then so I assume they come from donors? Does that mean they require immunosuppressant drugs?
The courts certainly do create law. Read any transcript from a civil trial and you will see loads of references to other cases and why or why not THAT particular law should apply in this case. If Congress (or other jurisdictions) made all the law, all that would be required is a reference to statute XYZ.
The law made by courts is called Common Law, and is the basis for pretty much all civil law.
It's a bit of a framing issue but I think of Common Law (or Case Law) as ultimately deriving from statutory law from congress. It's basically the courts laying out standards so that congressional laws are fairly and consistently applied.
I don't think American courts can do things through common law that congress can't.
Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,
The courts enforce laws. What's the source of these laws that abridge free speech?
WTF has the First Amendment got to do with this? The First only stops the government from censoring you. I, or any other private individual or company, can still tell you to shut up.
Aren't the courts part of the government?
Any restriction on your speech, even those you agree to as part of a contract, have to be enforced by courts and are thus subject to the first amendment.
I think the only time when first amendment is generally misapplied is when a non-government organization censors, such as a message board deleting posts. Even then there's ways in which the first amendment comes up.
Since it's not really clear from the video here's a link to the screenplay.
It's looks more or less what you'd expect a screenplay written by a chatbot trained on screenplays to look like.
Just be glad they didn't give the assignment to Microsoft's Tay.
I was just reading a related article on Tesla and the underlying claim is it may be a symptom of a bigger problem.
The thrust of the argument is that cars in general are shockingly reliable, this isn't an easy thing to do which is why car companies have been working at it a very long time and still have trouble.
Tesla is very new to making cars and their cars haven't been around a long time. The chances are really good that their cars will have huge reliability problems as they age.