I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?
Presumably you can do that before or after crossing the street. Since you are supposedly walking between two white crosswalk lines when you are crossing, you don't have a lot of choices as to where to go while crossing!
Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?
You're making the assumption that just because the WALK sign is lit, you're not holding anybody up while you're on the street. What about cars that are waiting to turn? Not all roads have a green left-turn signal, and very few have a right turn arrow, so cars wanting to turn have to wait for pedestrians to clear the intersection before they can complete their turn. And, if there's no turning lane, cars waiting to turn can hold up cars behind them wanting to go straight on a green light. During heavy traffic times, this can be a major hold up. Should all those cars have to wait while you stop and take a picture, even if there's a WALK sign lit?
Now, if someone causes an accident there are already ways to hold them responsible (protip: a $35 fine isn't it). If they don't cause an accident, then no-harm, no-foul.
The problem is you could use that exact same argument to legalize driving while drunk. If you cause an accident, you get in trouble; if you don't, no harm, no foul.
As a Canadian, I'd just like to apologize for this.
As a Canadian, I'd also like to apologize while acknowledging that I am apologizing on land that was once owned by the Huron and Algonquin First Nations.
The ONLY way to eliminate the problem is for the smartphones to utilize their tracking abilities and to cease most functioning aside from a few items like 911 calls and GPS when it shows you to be in a car traveling down a road. Since it is impossible to determine who the driver is then it would have to apply to everyone. Yes this will limit passengers use too and that's simply going to have to be a trade off to be made for safety.
How long do you think it will be before hacks are readily available for phones to disable this "feature"? Do we make it illegal to download such software? Do we make possession of a phone containing this hack illegal even if that phone is used only by passengers? How popular do you think this law will be when we start jailing car passengers for using a hacked phone in this way? And if you don't impose such draconian laws, the original law would serve no useful purpose. Why not just impose harsher penalties for distracted driving and leave the passengers alone?
As the summary indicates, this requirement on AOL was part of a deal to allow a merger between Time-Warner and AOL. As far as I know, Facebook isn't looking to merge with anybody, so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
In many countries, you can go to jail for looking at or possessing child pornography.
I agree 100%, and one of the big problems with outlawing the mere possession or in some countries even accessing child pornography is it opens the door to all kinds of restrictions of what one can view or read along with criminal penalties for doing so.
That said, there is one important distinction. Children are actually harmed in the manufacture of many types of child pornography (but not all: cartoon images for instance) whereas no one is actually harmed in the making of terrorist propaganda videos (unless they include beheadings, etc.) But this doesn't justify the criminalization of merely looking at or possessing child pornography, so I do agree with your basic point.
Oh my God, Russians living in Russia have broken US laws. Behead them. Oh, wait, they are Russians living in Russia.
You don't think the U.S. should investigate crimes against the U.S. just because they were committed abroad? It doesn't mean they'll ask for extradition or even lay charges, but if U.S. laws are broken, the justice department has an obligation to investigate. That's their job.
And then, what do we do with all the foreign press that carried articles and other material either beneficial or detrimental to specific candidates? Do we behead the newspaper editors and publishers for violating US law?
Don't know why you keep going on about beheading. The penalty is a fine. And there is an exception in this law for journalism.
It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not.
Of course it matters if the Trump campaign was involved or not. Here: "11 CFR 110.20(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals...
Yes, of course. What I meant was it doesn't matter for the purposes of deciding Russian culpability. Of course, if Trump or his campaign was involved it matters as far as his culpability goes. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law.
That's absolutely wrong. Title 52 U.S.C. 30121 (a)(1)(C) says "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not. If the Russians bought ads that mention the names of either or both candidates for the purposes of supporting one of the candidates then they have broken the law.
I'm rather curious about this as well. I haven't been following this thing very closely, so in short: What did they do that was illegal
If they paid money for ads in support of or against a particular political candidate, they were in violation of
Title 52 United States Code Sec. 30121. The constitutionality of this statute was challenged on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in refusing to hear an appeal,
let stand a ruling by a federal court of appeals that found the statute to be enforceable.
Canadians are a pretty tech-literate lot when it comes to entertainment. If Bell gets what they want, I would expect to see significant push-back in the form of increased VPN use. Then Bell will be back trying to get VPN's outlawed.
Not necessary. Netflix has been quite successful in maintaining a block list of VPNs. No reason Bell couldn't do the same.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is a clear violation of the first amendment.
I wish the Supreme Court saw it this way, but they have already considered this matter in refusing to hear a case from a lower court which had decided that restrictions of foreign nationals' contributions or attempts to influence U.S. elections is not unconstitutional. (See Bluman vs. FEC.)
Many people have a legitimate beef with the US empire, and any terrorism is well deserved to be honest.
Having a "legitimate beef" with someone doesn't entitle you to commit a terrorist act against them. I have a legitimate beef with people who double park, or cut me off on the highway, but that doesn't entitle me to detonate bombs in their homes, killing their innocent children.
Remember when there used to be payphones all over the place, so if you had an emergency or ran out of gas or something, you could call for help? Good luck finding one of those now. And when cab companies are put out of business by Uber, good luck getting transportation anywhere without a cellphone. It won't be long before you won't be able to pay bills by mailing a check and some countries have already gone cashless, and my prediction is that in less than 20 years if not sooner, America will be cashless as well, and smartphone apps will have completely replaced debit and credit cards. Up to now, I've resisted getting a smartphone, but it's getting harder and harder all the time. Meeting friends at a restaurant is getting to be a problem. It used to be you'd decide in advance where and when you'd meet. Nowadays, they expect you to be reachable all the time, so they can make their decision at the very last minute. It's really hard to have a social life today without a smartphone.
No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.
I'm sure some people have. Think about all the people in the world throughout human history who have been afflicted by leprosy. Can you be sure none of them had been insulted and had their feelings hurt the day before? Of course, there's no causative link between the two, but it is really an overreach to say no one has come down with leprosy the day after being offended over something.
Of course I'm welcome to not buy such a car. I'm also welcome to buy such a car and "hack" it and extend the battery life. The question is: will there be legal consequences for me if I do? Ultimately it will be up to legislatures to decide this matter and they are supposed to represent us, so do we want to live in a world where car manufacturers can restrict with legal means our ability to enhance our cars or not?
The problem with that business model is eventually someone will figure out how to "jailbreak" their car and enhance the battery life without paying Tesla for the privilege. This will create all kinds of legal nightmares. Historically car owners have been allowed to "soup up their ride" (as long as the resulting vehicle is street legal), but with this new kind of business model that Tesla has, that could change. When you buy a car will there be an EULA that forbids making improvements? This could be a slippery slope.
speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?
The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not the speech was made by citizens or not, nor to do with where the speech was made. The first words of the Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." The Amendment applies to the U.S. Government, and by later amendments to States as well. (It doesn't apply to foreign legislatures or governments, but they may have their own Constitutions with similar protections.) Since the article is talking about a proposed law passed by Congress, the First Amendment applies. Nothing in the Amendment restricts the scope of its application with regards to citizenship of those targeted by the law or their geographical location. If you're on trial in a U.S. court, the First Amendment applies.
Likewise, if Equifax, through gross negligence, causes me serious harm
Negligence implies a duty of care. I don't know that Equifax has a duty of care to these consumers in this case. Unless there's some regulation I'm not aware of. Perhaps as a result of this, some new regulations will be passed, but they can't apply retroactively. So again, I don't think there's standing to sue in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
I just can't fathom why anyone would use such a pathetically limited platform.
Hey, 280 characters ought to be enough for anybody.
Really? My computer has a whopping 640K of RAM and I should be limited to 280 character messages?
I hope the relevant authorities have been using such filth as a honeypot and keep an eye on some of the people that post and/or consume that shit. Should get their heads examined.
Precisely who are the "relevant authorities" whose job it is to police what people say or read and what do they do if somebody says or reads something they're not supposed to?
How do they know I am not trying to find my way?
Presumably you can do that before or after crossing the street. Since you are supposedly walking between two white crosswalk lines when you are crossing, you don't have a lot of choices as to where to go while crossing!
Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?
You're making the assumption that just because the WALK sign is lit, you're not holding anybody up while you're on the street. What about cars that are waiting to turn? Not all roads have a green left-turn signal, and very few have a right turn arrow, so cars wanting to turn have to wait for pedestrians to clear the intersection before they can complete their turn. And, if there's no turning lane, cars waiting to turn can hold up cars behind them wanting to go straight on a green light. During heavy traffic times, this can be a major hold up. Should all those cars have to wait while you stop and take a picture, even if there's a WALK sign lit?
Now, if someone causes an accident there are already ways to hold them responsible (protip: a $35 fine isn't it). If they don't cause an accident, then no-harm, no-foul.
The problem is you could use that exact same argument to legalize driving while drunk. If you cause an accident, you get in trouble; if you don't, no harm, no foul.
As a Canadian, I'd just like to apologize for this.
As a Canadian, I'd also like to apologize while acknowledging that I am apologizing on land that was once owned by the Huron and Algonquin First Nations.
The ONLY way to eliminate the problem is for the smartphones to utilize their tracking abilities and to cease most functioning aside from a few items like 911 calls and GPS when it shows you to be in a car traveling down a road. Since it is impossible to determine who the driver is then it would have to apply to everyone. Yes this will limit passengers use too and that's simply going to have to be a trade off to be made for safety.
How long do you think it will be before hacks are readily available for phones to disable this "feature"? Do we make it illegal to download such software? Do we make possession of a phone containing this hack illegal even if that phone is used only by passengers? How popular do you think this law will be when we start jailing car passengers for using a hacked phone in this way? And if you don't impose such draconian laws, the original law would serve no useful purpose. Why not just impose harsher penalties for distracted driving and leave the passengers alone?
Because they have a monopoly, and monopolies are regulated in civilised nations.
A monopoly on what, precisely?
He can attend a beard growing competition but can't take the time to use full disk encryption? Was he stoned on Oxycontin?
He may have indeed used full disk encryption, but customs officers generally require you to unlock your devices when they search them.
As the summary indicates, this requirement on AOL was part of a deal to allow a merger between Time-Warner and AOL. As far as I know, Facebook isn't looking to merge with anybody, so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
How is this any different from kiddie porn?
In many countries, you can go to jail for looking at or possessing child pornography.
I agree 100%, and one of the big problems with outlawing the mere possession or in some countries even accessing child pornography is it opens the door to all kinds of restrictions of what one can view or read along with criminal penalties for doing so.
That said, there is one important distinction. Children are actually harmed in the manufacture of many types of child pornography (but not all: cartoon images for instance) whereas no one is actually harmed in the making of terrorist propaganda videos (unless they include beheadings, etc.) But this doesn't justify the criminalization of merely looking at or possessing child pornography, so I do agree with your basic point.
Oh my God, Russians living in Russia have broken US laws. Behead them. Oh, wait, they are Russians living in Russia.
You don't think the U.S. should investigate crimes against the U.S. just because they were committed abroad? It doesn't mean they'll ask for extradition or even lay charges, but if U.S. laws are broken, the justice department has an obligation to investigate. That's their job.
And then, what do we do with all the foreign press that carried articles and other material either beneficial or detrimental to specific candidates? Do we behead the newspaper editors and publishers for violating US law?
Don't know why you keep going on about beheading. The penalty is a fine. And there is an exception in this law for journalism.
It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not.
Of course it matters if the Trump campaign was involved or not. Here: "11 CFR 110.20(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals...
Yes, of course. What I meant was it doesn't matter for the purposes of deciding Russian culpability. Of course, if Trump or his campaign was involved it matters as far as his culpability goes. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Netflix blocks VPN's to their servers. How the fuck would Bell block and limit VPN'S not using Bell as a server and not being accessed?
Learn what a fucking VPN does.
I should have been more specific and said Bell or other ISPs. Since your data passes through them, they can most certainly block it.
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law.
That's absolutely wrong. Title 52 U.S.C. 30121 (a)(1)(C) says "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not. If the Russians bought ads that mention the names of either or both candidates for the purposes of supporting one of the candidates then they have broken the law.
I'm rather curious about this as well. I haven't been following this thing very closely, so in short: What did they do that was illegal
If they paid money for ads in support of or against a particular political candidate, they were in violation of Title 52 United States Code Sec. 30121. The constitutionality of this statute was challenged on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in refusing to hear an appeal, let stand a ruling by a federal court of appeals that found the statute to be enforceable.
Canadians are a pretty tech-literate lot when it comes to entertainment. If Bell gets what they want, I would expect to see significant push-back in the form of increased VPN use. Then Bell will be back trying to get VPN's outlawed.
Not necessary. Netflix has been quite successful in maintaining a block list of VPNs. No reason Bell couldn't do the same.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is a clear violation of the first amendment.
I wish the Supreme Court saw it this way, but they have already considered this matter in refusing to hear a case from a lower court which had decided that restrictions of foreign nationals' contributions or attempts to influence U.S. elections is not unconstitutional. (See Bluman vs. FEC.)
Many people have a legitimate beef with the US empire, and any terrorism is well deserved to be honest.
Having a "legitimate beef" with someone doesn't entitle you to commit a terrorist act against them. I have a legitimate beef with people who double park, or cut me off on the highway, but that doesn't entitle me to detonate bombs in their homes, killing their innocent children.
The internet is way overrated.
So what are you using, if not the Internet, to read Slashdot and post comments?
Remember when there used to be payphones all over the place, so if you had an emergency or ran out of gas or something, you could call for help? Good luck finding one of those now. And when cab companies are put out of business by Uber, good luck getting transportation anywhere without a cellphone. It won't be long before you won't be able to pay bills by mailing a check and some countries have already gone cashless, and my prediction is that in less than 20 years if not sooner, America will be cashless as well, and smartphone apps will have completely replaced debit and credit cards. Up to now, I've resisted getting a smartphone, but it's getting harder and harder all the time. Meeting friends at a restaurant is getting to be a problem. It used to be you'd decide in advance where and when you'd meet. Nowadays, they expect you to be reachable all the time, so they can make their decision at the very last minute. It's really hard to have a social life today without a smartphone.
No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.
I'm sure some people have. Think about all the people in the world throughout human history who have been afflicted by leprosy. Can you be sure none of them had been insulted and had their feelings hurt the day before? Of course, there's no causative link between the two, but it is really an overreach to say no one has come down with leprosy the day after being offended over something.
You're welcome to not buy such a car.
Of course I'm welcome to not buy such a car. I'm also welcome to buy such a car and "hack" it and extend the battery life. The question is: will there be legal consequences for me if I do? Ultimately it will be up to legislatures to decide this matter and they are supposed to represent us, so do we want to live in a world where car manufacturers can restrict with legal means our ability to enhance our cars or not?
The crippled betteries are sold under cost.
The problem with that business model is eventually someone will figure out how to "jailbreak" their car and enhance the battery life without paying Tesla for the privilege. This will create all kinds of legal nightmares. Historically car owners have been allowed to "soup up their ride" (as long as the resulting vehicle is street legal), but with this new kind of business model that Tesla has, that could change. When you buy a car will there be an EULA that forbids making improvements? This could be a slippery slope.
speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?
The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not the speech was made by citizens or not, nor to do with where the speech was made. The first words of the Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." The Amendment applies to the U.S. Government, and by later amendments to States as well. (It doesn't apply to foreign legislatures or governments, but they may have their own Constitutions with similar protections.) Since the article is talking about a proposed law passed by Congress, the First Amendment applies. Nothing in the Amendment restricts the scope of its application with regards to citizenship of those targeted by the law or their geographical location. If you're on trial in a U.S. court, the First Amendment applies.
Likewise, if Equifax, through gross negligence, causes me serious harm
Negligence implies a duty of care. I don't know that Equifax has a duty of care to these consumers in this case. Unless there's some regulation I'm not aware of. Perhaps as a result of this, some new regulations will be passed, but they can't apply retroactively. So again, I don't think there's standing to sue in this case.