Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.
What will make similar atrocities in the future more likely are people ceding to the government the right to control the teaching and study of history.
I always use cash. Same reason I use a pad of paper and pen / pencil for taking notes. Its easy and always works. Sometimes the best tech is low tech.
Cash is at best a temporary solution for anonymity. Virtually all stores have security cameras and as facial recognition software becomes cheaper and more accurate, you can be sure retailers will start using it to track your purchases. And if there are cameras in the parking lot they can see your license plate too.
The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.
Actually, it's not so clear and may very well be overturned on appeal. The problem is this. (Excerpt from ruling which quotes the Act which supposedly makes the FAA's regulation illegal.):
The Act defines “model aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft that is — (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."
The problem is part (2): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft." Drones do not need to be in the operators visual line of sight because they typically have an on board camera which the operator can use to navigate even when the drone is out of the visual line of sight. That's what distinguishes a drone from a remote controlled aircraft, and it is drones, not RC aircraft which were required to be registered by the FAA before this ruling. I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with the FAA's policy. I'm just saying I think this court got it wrong from a legal point of view.
Is there a reason one would use a site like extratorrent rather than piratebay? They all just list torrents, right? I recognize I'm terribly uninformed when it comes to piracy, just wondering if I'm missing something.
What's wrong with The Pirate Bay is that it is becoming the only torrent site. All the others are shutting down, which means when The Pirate Bay falls, there will be nothing left. It's dangerous to be too reliant on one site. Think they're too big to be shut down? Kickass Torrents was just as big. There needs to be more options. When there are only a few, they are targets. It will only be a matter of time before The Pirate Bay falls.
But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....
The problem is that the risk isn't just to YOU, the driver, out enjoying the freedom of a recreational drive. The risk is to pedestrians, passengers of other, self-driving, cars, bicyclists, and anyone else on the road. If self-driving cars are practical and the only reason for driving a car yourself is for pleasure, is it reasonable to expect all those other people to put their lives at risk so you can enjoy that pleasure?
Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
Isn't a basic tenet of any justice system the right to face one's accuser? Why should accusers be able to hide behind a mask of anonymity?
This is discovery. The defendants threatened to distribute photos etc, from unspecified devices and sources. The prosecution wishes to confirm that such photos etc. exist, for without them there is no case. Defendants refuse to permit discovery.
It would depend if the documents are encrypted or not. If the passcode is merely to provide access to a locked but unencrypted part of a device, then you might have a point. But if the documents are encrypted that means that the documents do exist, but as ciphertext, and certainly the courts should have access to that ciphertext. But if information is required to transform that ciphertext into plaintext and that information is stored only in a defendant/suspect's head, then the Fifth Amendment should apply and the defendant/suspect should not be compelled to provide the information needed to create that plaintext. In other words, at the time the warrant is executed, if the document only exists in ciphertext form, then that's all the court should be entitled to. Suspects shouldn't be required to create/re-create evidence against them.
If this were paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half.
EXACTLY! The prosecution would be permitted to saw the boxes in half. The defendant would not be required to do the sawing for them.
The spelling mistake in the headline may have had readers scratching their heads wondering what "hydroxl" is and trying to look it up on Wikipedia. (It isn't there.) The correct spelling is "hydroxyl" and the molecule is called the "hydroxyl radical". The Wikipedia article is actually very good and informative.
What am I missing here? I thought Assange isn't a US citizen. He also wasn't on US soil when he received, nor when he published the material. How is the US juridical system involved, then?
There is no exemption to the law for non-citizens. Non-citizens are routinely extradited to other countries for breaking their laws, even if they weren't physically present. Kim Dotcom is one example, as was that British hacker who broke into U.S. military computers (I forget his name.) I believe there was also someone from British Columbia extradited to the U.S. for selling marijuana to U.S. citizens while they were visiting Canada. (Again, I forget his name.)
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided.
Laws against releasing classified information apply to everyone, not just those with a security clearance. Some exceptions can be made in the case of journalists publishing information for which there is a strong public interest (read up on the Pentagon Papers case, for instance) but in general, knowingly leaking classified documents is a crime, no matter who you are. Secondly, as the article states, they now believe they have evidence to show that Assange assisted and possibly even enticed Snowden and others to break the law by stealing documents or violating their security clearances. Assisting in the commission of a crime is most definitely a crime. So it sounds like they may have a pretty good case.
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
Whatever you may think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's politics or decisions, she is an intellectual giant, much smarter and sharper than the vast majority of people half her age. There's a good reason she and Scalia were such good friends. Despite almost polar opposite politics, there were few others in the world that were their intellectual equal. And they were both wise enough to understand that associating yourself only with those whose political beliefs are aligned with yours is really self-limiting, and ultimately rather boring.
They can stop printing cash, that is fine, but that does not mean you have to be part of this experiment in oppression a and slavery, defy this crap, exchange in something tangible, use precious metals or just barter, tell the government to fuck off, or don't tell it but act that way.
That all sounds good, until you try to go to the supermarket and pay for your groceries with gold bars. Ditto for just about anything else you buy.
Ok, I am not a tax specialist, but isn't corporate tax applied to profit?
But those profits still enrich the company. Which means the value of the shares go up and shareholders pay capital gains taxes. No matter how you look at it, corporate income tax is double taxation.
remember the court battle in which the E.U. argued that Apple owed more taxes to the Irish government, despite the fact that the Irish government didn't even want those revenues? This is the kind of absurdity that results from corporate taxes.
Not absurd at all. Ireland tried to do something E.U. membership explicitly forbids. Whether they "wanted" these taxes from Apple is completely irrelevant.
Wow. If you don't see the absurdity in a company being forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't want them, then it will probably be very hard to convince you. At the very least, it turns the idea of taxes entirely on its head. Taxes are supposed to be a means of collecting revenue so a government can function. According to EU logic, taxes are about some kind of competition between countries with minimum rates set so no country is too competitive. This is such a distortion of what taxes are supposed to be that it's no surprise the EU is breaking up. I say good riddance to them!
This is a basic problem with corporate income tax: everyone in the world feels they are entitled to their "fair share". Corporate tax itself is a kind of double taxation: a corporation is made up of people who pay income tax. In addition, there is sales tax paid on all goods sold in a given country. I imagine a great deal of sales tax has been paid on Apple products in New Zealand, money the government wouldn't have if Apple didn't sell products there.
The problem with corporate income tax is that it is always possible for a mutlinational corporation to shift its profits to whichever country offers the lowest tax rate, unfairly enriching that one country. The best solution is probably to get rid of corporate income tax altogether, and make up the difference with sales taxes. (After all, the cost of corporate taxes are passed along to the consumers anyway.) This way, there's no arguing about who is entitled to the tax money: it's paid by the consumer wherever the sale takes place. This isn't the first time corporate taxes have caused problems: remember the court battle in which the E.U. argued that Apple owed more taxes to the Irish government, despite the fact that the Irish government didn't even want those revenues? This is the kind of absurdity that results from corporate taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.
What will make similar atrocities in the future more likely are people ceding to the government the right to control the teaching and study of history.
I always use cash. Same reason I use a pad of paper and pen / pencil for taking notes. Its easy and always works. Sometimes the best tech is low tech.
Cash is at best a temporary solution for anonymity. Virtually all stores have security cameras and as facial recognition software becomes cheaper and more accurate, you can be sure retailers will start using it to track your purchases. And if there are cameras in the parking lot they can see your license plate too.
The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.
Actually, it's not so clear and may very well be overturned on appeal. The problem is this. (Excerpt from ruling which quotes the Act which supposedly makes the FAA's regulation illegal.):
The Act defines “model aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft that is — (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."
The problem is part (2): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft." Drones do not need to be in the operators visual line of sight because they typically have an on board camera which the operator can use to navigate even when the drone is out of the visual line of sight. That's what distinguishes a drone from a remote controlled aircraft, and it is drones, not RC aircraft which were required to be registered by the FAA before this ruling. I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with the FAA's policy. I'm just saying I think this court got it wrong from a legal point of view.
Is there a reason one would use a site like extratorrent rather than piratebay? They all just list torrents, right? I recognize I'm terribly uninformed when it comes to piracy, just wondering if I'm missing something.
What's wrong with The Pirate Bay is that it is becoming the only torrent site. All the others are shutting down, which means when The Pirate Bay falls, there will be nothing left. It's dangerous to be too reliant on one site. Think they're too big to be shut down? Kickass Torrents was just as big. There needs to be more options. When there are only a few, they are targets. It will only be a matter of time before The Pirate Bay falls.
But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....
The problem is that the risk isn't just to YOU, the driver, out enjoying the freedom of a recreational drive. The risk is to pedestrians, passengers of other, self-driving, cars, bicyclists, and anyone else on the road. If self-driving cars are practical and the only reason for driving a car yourself is for pleasure, is it reasonable to expect all those other people to put their lives at risk so you can enjoy that pleasure?
Ah, utopia! We can only hope!
You can have progressive taxation and universal healthcare or increasing inequality and more illness, fear, death and guns. Your choice.
I choose freedom. (And a possible risk of a shorter life.)
This software is more like a real criminal using methods to avoid undercover police.
Is there a law against evading undercover police?
Won't this encourage companies to launch their rockets from different states, possibly taking jobs with them? What is the point of this tax?
Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
Isn't a basic tenet of any justice system the right to face one's accuser? Why should accusers be able to hide behind a mask of anonymity?
(Score: +5, Insightful)
To each his own, but I don't tend to mod up posts which end with "you stupid idiot" in response to a perfectly reasonable post.
This is discovery. The defendants threatened to distribute photos etc, from unspecified devices and sources. The prosecution wishes to confirm that such photos etc. exist, for without them there is no case. Defendants refuse to permit discovery.
It would depend if the documents are encrypted or not. If the passcode is merely to provide access to a locked but unencrypted part of a device, then you might have a point. But if the documents are encrypted that means that the documents do exist, but as ciphertext, and certainly the courts should have access to that ciphertext. But if information is required to transform that ciphertext into plaintext and that information is stored only in a defendant/suspect's head, then the Fifth Amendment should apply and the defendant/suspect should not be compelled to provide the information needed to create that plaintext. In other words, at the time the warrant is executed, if the document only exists in ciphertext form, then that's all the court should be entitled to. Suspects shouldn't be required to create/re-create evidence against them.
If this were paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half.
EXACTLY! The prosecution would be permitted to saw the boxes in half. The defendant would not be required to do the sawing for them.
The media should not change the law.
On that we agree!
You forgot the metadata (ones and zeros) that makes up the voice part of the phone call. Yes, they store all that too.
True, but technically that's not metadata. That's data.
My high school had Commodore PET 4032 computers and my first computer was a Commodore 64, and our school computers probably influenced my decision.
The spelling mistake in the headline may have had readers scratching their heads wondering what "hydroxl" is and trying to look it up on Wikipedia. (It isn't there.) The correct spelling is "hydroxyl" and the molecule is called the "hydroxyl radical". The Wikipedia article is actually very good and informative.
What am I missing here? I thought Assange isn't a US citizen. He also wasn't on US soil when he received, nor when he published the material. How is the US juridical system involved, then?
There is no exemption to the law for non-citizens. Non-citizens are routinely extradited to other countries for breaking their laws, even if they weren't physically present. Kim Dotcom is one example, as was that British hacker who broke into U.S. military computers (I forget his name.) I believe there was also someone from British Columbia extradited to the U.S. for selling marijuana to U.S. citizens while they were visiting Canada. (Again, I forget his name.)
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided.
Laws against releasing classified information apply to everyone, not just those with a security clearance. Some exceptions can be made in the case of journalists publishing information for which there is a strong public interest (read up on the Pentagon Papers case, for instance) but in general, knowingly leaking classified documents is a crime, no matter who you are. Secondly, as the article states, they now believe they have evidence to show that Assange assisted and possibly even enticed Snowden and others to break the law by stealing documents or violating their security clearances. Assisting in the commission of a crime is most definitely a crime. So it sounds like they may have a pretty good case.
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..." If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
Whatever you may think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's politics or decisions, she is an intellectual giant, much smarter and sharper than the vast majority of people half her age. There's a good reason she and Scalia were such good friends. Despite almost polar opposite politics, there were few others in the world that were their intellectual equal. And they were both wise enough to understand that associating yourself only with those whose political beliefs are aligned with yours is really self-limiting, and ultimately rather boring.
31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."
Actually, it is precisely those 31% that are MOST AFFECTED by "social justice". Just not in a positive way.
They can stop printing cash, that is fine, but that does not mean you have to be part of this experiment in oppression a and slavery, defy this crap, exchange in something tangible, use precious metals or just barter, tell the government to fuck off, or don't tell it but act that way.
That all sounds good, until you try to go to the supermarket and pay for your groceries with gold bars. Ditto for just about anything else you buy.
13 per cent CPU. For a blinking cursor. That's... impressive.
But not in a good way
Yeah, my old Commodore 64 had a blinking cursor, and it somehow managed that remarkable feat with an 8-bit 6510 CPU running at 1MHz!!!
Ok, I am not a tax specialist, but isn't corporate tax applied to profit?
But those profits still enrich the company. Which means the value of the shares go up and shareholders pay capital gains taxes. No matter how you look at it, corporate income tax is double taxation.
remember the court battle in which the E.U. argued that Apple owed more taxes to the Irish government, despite the fact that the Irish government didn't even want those revenues? This is the kind of absurdity that results from corporate taxes.
Not absurd at all. Ireland tried to do something E.U. membership explicitly forbids. Whether they "wanted" these taxes from Apple is completely irrelevant.
Wow. If you don't see the absurdity in a company being forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't want them, then it will probably be very hard to convince you. At the very least, it turns the idea of taxes entirely on its head. Taxes are supposed to be a means of collecting revenue so a government can function. According to EU logic, taxes are about some kind of competition between countries with minimum rates set so no country is too competitive. This is such a distortion of what taxes are supposed to be that it's no surprise the EU is breaking up. I say good riddance to them!
This is a basic problem with corporate income tax: everyone in the world feels they are entitled to their "fair share". Corporate tax itself is a kind of double taxation: a corporation is made up of people who pay income tax. In addition, there is sales tax paid on all goods sold in a given country. I imagine a great deal of sales tax has been paid on Apple products in New Zealand, money the government wouldn't have if Apple didn't sell products there.
The problem with corporate income tax is that it is always possible for a mutlinational corporation to shift its profits to whichever country offers the lowest tax rate, unfairly enriching that one country. The best solution is probably to get rid of corporate income tax altogether, and make up the difference with sales taxes. (After all, the cost of corporate taxes are passed along to the consumers anyway.) This way, there's no arguing about who is entitled to the tax money: it's paid by the consumer wherever the sale takes place. This isn't the first time corporate taxes have caused problems: remember the court battle in which the E.U. argued that Apple owed more taxes to the Irish government, despite the fact that the Irish government didn't even want those revenues? This is the kind of absurdity that results from corporate taxes.
Physics is a superset of chemistry.
I guess that depends if you're talking to a physicist or a chemist.
Who is he talking about? Who's "us"?
Well, since it's the NSA and DOE saying this, I'd guess us=U.S.