I think what we need is liability to the callee that aligns incentives in useful ways. For example, require caller ID to be accurate, and if the caller would be liable for $X in damages, make their telco liable for $X/2 in damages, and the caller's telco liable for $X/4 in damages, with a reasonably streamlined adjudication process. If Verizon owed me $125 for each ID-spoofed call I got in a month, they'd work pretty hard to make it reliable enough to shift that liability.
Do the signaling protocols that telcos use accurately carry source information, even when VoIP providers help spoofing? Why won't my caller phone show that info? I didn't say identifying the caller was impossible, just that it is inordinately difficult and often not worth the hassle. It also tends to raise one's blood pressure.
There is a serious collective action problem here. Between caller ID spoofing, robo-calling, callers refusing to identify their company or who they are calling on behalf of, and outright fraud, it is all but impossible to establish a TCPA violator's identity well enough to stand up in court, and then it is practically impossible to enforce any judgment. The time and effort it takes to win money is more costly for most people than what they could collect in a civil case.
Functionality delivered per engineer is a reasonable, although obviously incomplete, measure for managers to appraise individual engineers or teams.
Functionality delivered per dollar is a useful measure for customers to appraise projects, where a "customer" might be another business unit or an executive who authorizes funding for an internal project just as easily as a traditional (external) customer.
Both measures can, and often should, be used -- but obviously by different audiences, and for the different purposes that are pertinent to each audience.
The verbiage about being "held to answer" lays out the prerequisites for being tried for a felony, not for being obligated to testify. The bit about self-incrimination is towards the middle of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". A defendant or witness can waive his right to self-incrimination, for example by testifying about some sufficiently related fact, but if he has not waived that right, can refuse to answer questions that would incriminate him even if he is under oath. See, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... for an elaboration of these points.
Yes, but the privilege to not testify against oneself in a criminal trial is unconditional. You originally wrote that it was lost "on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury". It is not, and the Fifth Amendment is clear about that.
If the OS (or OpenGL driver) changes an application's memory allocation from physical pages A-F to pages U-Z, it doesn't tell the application or give the app a chance to clear the memory first. The app *cannot* guarantee that its memory is cleared before being handed to another process.
I'm not going to spell out for you any further what you could easily find on Wikipedia's page about fundamental rights. I have neither the time nor inclination to school you on basic legal principles of US law.
Parental discretion about how to raise children is one of the black letter fundamental rights in the US. See, for example, Wisconsin v. Yoder. That's the category of right that is protected against state interference by the 14A. See also precedent on corporal punishment -- unless it is grossly disproportionate, real courts tend to defer to parental judgment about what is allowed.
(Why do I say "real courts"? Because Child Protective Services departments prefer to keep cases out of Article III courts, either by bullying parents into signing away rights, or by using administrative law judges -- and ALJs tend to ignore pesky individual rights.)
No, I am invoking the Privileges Or Immunities clause, which is why my earlier comments used the words "privileges" and "immunities". Parental privilege is more than just being able to say "because I said so" to your kids.
The whole point of the last sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is to authorize Congress to protect individuals' rights, privileges, and immunities from infringement by state governments. This law, like typical federal civil rights laws, does not commandeer state or local governments -- it prohibits them from infringing private rights. If your theory were correct, basically all federal civil rights laws would be unconstitutional.
The entire concept of Britain's NHS seems to be that teeth are bad, so Brits need uniformly bad health care so they don't wonder why dental care is singled out for poor coverage. Gotta love up to the standard image of having at most 20 teeth, you know.
If you think my hypothesis sounds crazy, it just shows that you don't read enough Internets. Or that you're willing to spout equally unhinged and poorly supported theories about Americans.
Yeah, those eeebull Rethuglicans are horrible when they say the federal government should keep its mitts off private citizens, and grant individuals more liberty. They are also terrible, and hypocritical, when they say the same thing about state governments.
The Fourteenth Amendment, basically. It guarantees the privileges and immunities of citizenship to all natural born or naturalized citizens, and authorizes Congress to enforce that through legislation.
Got a citation on effectively beaming the power down without focusing it? Besides the fact that you'd need 150 or 200 of the (challenglingly large) sails that you suggest to provide the 3-4 TW that the earlier post described, how do you focus the energy on a set of receiving stations without being able to focus it on a much smaller number of targets?
Twitter intentionally excluded political orientation from their list of protected classes, so SJWs are free to call for killing conservatives and Republicans -- while reporting conservatives and Republicans as being hateful for asking that the US enforce immigration and employment laws.
I wonder how long this will hold up once Amazon says they can no longer offer one-hour delivery in DC because the no-fly zone keeps them from operating delivery drones. Even if Amazon gets a regulatory exemption, rich and powerful hobbyists will be pointedly asking what makes Amazon so special.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what we need is liability to the callee that aligns incentives in useful ways. For example, require caller ID to be accurate, and if the caller would be liable for $X in damages, make their telco liable for $X/2 in damages, and the caller's telco liable for $X/4 in damages, with a reasonably streamlined adjudication process. If Verizon owed me $125 for each ID-spoofed call I got in a month, they'd work pretty hard to make it reliable enough to shift that liability.
Do the signaling protocols that telcos use accurately carry source information, even when VoIP providers help spoofing? Why won't my caller phone show that info? I didn't say identifying the caller was impossible, just that it is inordinately difficult and often not worth the hassle. It also tends to raise one's blood pressure.
There is a serious collective action problem here. Between caller ID spoofing, robo-calling, callers refusing to identify their company or who they are calling on behalf of, and outright fraud, it is all but impossible to establish a TCPA violator's identity well enough to stand up in court, and then it is practically impossible to enforce any judgment. The time and effort it takes to win money is more costly for most people than what they could collect in a civil case.
Functionality delivered per engineer is a reasonable, although obviously incomplete, measure for managers to appraise individual engineers or teams.
Functionality delivered per dollar is a useful measure for customers to appraise projects, where a "customer" might be another business unit or an executive who authorizes funding for an internal project just as easily as a traditional (external) customer.
Both measures can, and often should, be used -- but obviously by different audiences, and for the different purposes that are pertinent to each audience.
The verbiage about being "held to answer" lays out the prerequisites for being tried for a felony, not for being obligated to testify. The bit about self-incrimination is towards the middle of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". A defendant or witness can waive his right to self-incrimination, for example by testifying about some sufficiently related fact, but if he has not waived that right, can refuse to answer questions that would incriminate him even if he is under oath. See, for example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... for an elaboration of these points.
Yes, but the privilege to not testify against oneself in a criminal trial is unconditional. You originally wrote that it was lost "on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury". It is not, and the Fifth Amendment is clear about that.
That isn't what the Fifth Amendment says. At all.
If the OS (or OpenGL driver) changes an application's memory allocation from physical pages A-F to pages U-Z, it doesn't tell the application or give the app a chance to clear the memory first. The app *cannot* guarantee that its memory is cleared before being handed to another process.
I'm not going to spell out for you any further what you could easily find on Wikipedia's page about fundamental rights. I have neither the time nor inclination to school you on basic legal principles of US law.
Parental discretion about how to raise children is one of the black letter fundamental rights in the US. See, for example, Wisconsin v. Yoder. That's the category of right that is protected against state interference by the 14A. See also precedent on corporal punishment -- unless it is grossly disproportionate, real courts tend to defer to parental judgment about what is allowed.
(Why do I say "real courts"? Because Child Protective Services departments prefer to keep cases out of Article III courts, either by bullying parents into signing away rights, or by using administrative law judges -- and ALJs tend to ignore pesky individual rights.)
No, I am invoking the Privileges Or Immunities clause, which is why my earlier comments used the words "privileges" and "immunities". Parental privilege is more than just being able to say "because I said so" to your kids.
The whole point of the last sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is to authorize Congress to protect individuals' rights, privileges, and immunities from infringement by state governments. This law, like typical federal civil rights laws, does not commandeer state or local governments -- it prohibits them from infringing private rights. If your theory were correct, basically all federal civil rights laws would be unconstitutional.
Congress is trying to protect the parents' privileges and immunities, not the children's.
The entire concept of Britain's NHS seems to be that teeth are bad, so Brits need uniformly bad health care so they don't wonder why dental care is singled out for poor coverage. Gotta love up to the standard image of having at most 20 teeth, you know.
If you think my hypothesis sounds crazy, it just shows that you don't read enough Internets. Or that you're willing to spout equally unhinged and poorly supported theories about Americans.
Yeah, those eeebull Rethuglicans are horrible when they say the federal government should keep its mitts off private citizens, and grant individuals more liberty. They are also terrible, and hypocritical, when they say the same thing about state governments.
The Fourteenth Amendment, basically. It guarantees the privileges and immunities of citizenship to all natural born or naturalized citizens, and authorizes Congress to enforce that through legislation.
Got a citation on effectively beaming the power down without focusing it? Besides the fact that you'd need 150 or 200 of the (challenglingly large) sails that you suggest to provide the 3-4 TW that the earlier post described, how do you focus the energy on a set of receiving stations without being able to focus it on a much smaller number of targets?
Netcraft's latest survey confirms: Latin is a dying language.
Or maybe it should be "without cyber terrorists... who is there to fight online hackers?"
Did their mothers never tell them that two wrongs don't make a right? You need at least three lefts to make a right, or something.
You have not been properly educated in goodthink, comrade.
More serioiusly, the core problem with speech codes like this one is that they are terribly subjective and thus prone to uneven, biased enforcement.
The particular choice of language was clearly intended to "harass [or] intimidate" its target into silence.
So being so insensitive to the mentally unwell (and others who "have issues"). Someone might report you to the Twitter Police for hateful conduct.
Twitter intentionally excluded political orientation from their list of protected classes, so SJWs are free to call for killing conservatives and Republicans -- while reporting conservatives and Republicans as being hateful for asking that the US enforce immigration and employment laws.
I wonder how long this will hold up once Amazon says they can no longer offer one-hour delivery in DC because the no-fly zone keeps them from operating delivery drones. Even if Amazon gets a regulatory exemption, rich and powerful hobbyists will be pointedly asking what makes Amazon so special.
I think the 15 vs 30 miles is the thickness of an irregular ring, starting at the (non-circular) borders of DC. It's not as simple as pi*r*r.
C has had a buffered line reading function approximately forever. It is called fgets().